Here's a nice little vid of RMS on the Sun site!
http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/customers.jsp
Sean
Sean DALY sean.daly@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Here's a nice little vid of RMS on the Sun site! http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/customers.jsp
[BEGIN QUOTE] Your computer must meet the following requirements to successfully view this site: * Microsoft Windows 98(SE), 2000, XP, ME * Macintosh OSX * Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher * Safari for Macintosh * Flash 7.0.25 or higher * Cookies must be enabled for this site. [END QUOTE]
Can someone post the URL of the actual video if it's playable in free software not mentioned above, please?
Thanks,
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 16:47 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Can someone post the URL of the actual video if it's playable in free software not mentioned above, please?
MP3 audio:
http://downloads.feedroom.com/podcasts/t_assets/sun/20061112/b849b85f38e90f7...
MP4 video:
http://downloads.feedroom.com/podcasts/t_assets/sun/20061112/47878e012739e30...
There are other RMS videos up, but they're basically different edits of the same thing.
I can't find you a list of all the videos though - Eben's up there, as are other luminaries, but of course all the links are equally funged.
Cheers,
Alex.
PS. I presume mp[34] is ok; it works for me in mplayer, as far as I know I don't have any non-free software but obviously there is the usual mplayer-dodgyness rider.
On 13-Nov-2006, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 16:47 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Can someone post the URL of the actual video if it's playable in free software not mentioned above, please?
MP3 audio: http://[...]
MP4 video: http://[...]
There was a time when RMS would press to ensure that his interviews only be available if the be available in patent-free codecs, like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. I was half expecting that to be the case here, but apparently not :-(
Ben Finney ben@benfinney.id.au writes:
There was a time when RMS would press to ensure that his interviews only be available if the be available in patent-free codecs, like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. I was half expecting that to be the case here, but apparently not :-(
This also surprised me, but this is the only time I've seen him break that policy. It could have been an accident, carelessness, a misunderstanding, or any number of things.
For all we know, he could fuming mad about this.
On 13-Nov-2006, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Ben Finney ben@benfinney.id.au writes:
There was a time when RMS would press to ensure that his interviews only be available if the be available in patent-free codecs, like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. I was half expecting that to be the case here, but apparently not :-(
This also surprised me, but this is the only time I've seen him break that policy. It could have been an accident, carelessness, a misunderstanding, or any number of things.
For all we know, he could fuming mad about this.
Sure, but we only know what we can see. That's why I said "apparently".
Alfred Schmidt says (in a followup rudely copied to me *and* the list, despite my continued requests otherwise) that I'm making "baseless accusations". Is that what you think I've done? I wasn't meaning to do anything but describe observable fact.
On 14-Nov-2006, Ben Finney wrote:
Alfred Schmidt says
My apologies, that should be Alfred Szmidt.
(in a followup rudely copied to me *and* the list, despite my continued requests otherwise)
There is nothing rude about doing this, it is normal practise on mailing lists. I'm quite sure mutt (since that seems to be what you are using) has some feature to remove duplicate messages if they are annoying.
I wasn't meaning to do anything but describe observable fact.
You are trying to observe something without having any data, this will always lead to incorrect conclusions.
On 13-Nov-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
(in a followup rudely copied to me *and* the list, despite my continued requests otherwise)
There is nothing rude about doing this, it is normal practise on mailing lists.
I've taken this up with Alfred off-list, rather than forcing everyone to endure this boring side-topic that never seems to be resolved.
There was a time when RMS would press to ensure that his interviews only be available if the be available in patent-free codecs, like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora. I was half expecting that to be the case here, but apparently not :-(
He still does that, and quite strongly. But being a public figure, one cannot dictate who will and will not record your speech. But baseless accusation like these are not useful, instead lets ask Sun to provide a free format that everyone can view.
Does anyone know where one can ask the Sun folks about putting up a copy of that movie that in a free format? And ideally removing the non-free format one.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
PS. I presume mp[34] is ok; it works for me in mplayer, as far as I know I don't have any non-free software but obviously there is the usual mplayer-dodgyness rider.
Thanks for the links. Seemed to play out through libavcodec here, but I might have built it non-free-ly.
I'm a bit surprised that RMS speaks as if Sun have already released it all under the GPL, rather than merely saying that they will release most of it next year. Why all the premature Sun-bathing?
Regards,
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 10:25 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Thanks for the links. Seemed to play out through libavcodec here, but I might have built it non-free-ly.
It's often difficult to tell :/
I'm a bit surprised that RMS speaks as if Sun have already released it all under the GPL, rather than merely saying that they will release most of it next year. Why all the premature Sun-bathing?
I guess it depends on your point of view: after all, until the code is out there with GPL headers, the act isn't complete.
I think it's useful that Sun have announced this, though - it gives the Java projects out there a chance to plan, and to go through the code being released piece by piece. Whether or not that incremental strategy is the best way, I'm not sure, but since they seem to be saying that parts cannot be made free software I guess they must still be working through all the various third-party stuff they can't release.
In general, I think I prefer that Sun have announced this now, to fulfil the promise later, than for them to wait until later to decide and then "drop the G-bomb" - I think it's helpful to people like the Classpath developers.
Cheers,
Alex.
I'm a bit surprised that RMS speaks as if Sun have already released it all under the GPL, rather than merely saying that they will release most of it next year. Why all the premature Sun-bathing?
Maybe because of: a) From what I've heard they must have released the JRE for SE, ME and EE, which is no small thing. If they do as promised then we can thank them again next year. If not the efforts to get free java platform will have a little less to do (they have already done much). And there are already tools for developing java, so I assume that with what they have release a lot of staff "in contrib" becomes completely free.
b) If you don't "sun-bath" now the public may get the impression the way Sun has done it is wrong and should not continue it.
c) When I speak about a piece of free software I generally thank the authors, I don't usually start complaining about all the rest of software they may have written which isn't free.
d) Stallman, like others, may be tired of having to complain for everything and wellcome the chance to congratulate on something.
I've always had the impression that people at Sun don't understand free software, but anyway we have to admit they have done huge contributions, maybe not in philosophy but at least in code. Maybe they're a bit erratic sometimes, but a lot of what they do is right, so let's take it and thank it while we do what we can to explain the rest to them.
You know, one "problem" with working hard for things, is that sometimes you get them, or you get part of them, and them you have to stop complaining and go on to the next thing.
Anyway I haven't checked exactly what is available, maybe I'm missing something. We can talk specifics if you want. Why do you think the missing parts are "most of it"?
"Xavi Drudis Ferran" xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
Why all the premature Sun-bathing?
Maybe because of: a) From what I've heard they must have released the JRE for SE, ME and EE, which is no small thing. [...]
Misreporting is widespread, even from some FSFE Fellows. As far as I can tell, there is one component of the JRE for SE so far and Sun notes "what you don't get with the source code: the class libraries that in combination with the virtual machine make a Java Runtime Environment (JRE) or Java Developers Kit (JDK)." https://openjdk.dev.java.net/hotspot/
I didn't find any way to get the JRE for EE under GPL yet and I don't even understand ME enough to know what I'm looking for.
I remember the rejoicing when Netscape released their browser code. I also remember how long it has taken for Mozilla and Gnuzilla to make that into a good free software project. Will it take similar struggles to use Sun's contributions in working free software?
b) If you don't "sun-bath" now the public may get the impression the way Sun has done it is wrong and should not continue it.
That's silly. Sun hasn't done most of it yet: we can say it's good news and we look forward to it, without suggesting the actions so far are sufficient. Saying today that Sun has "with this contribution, have[sic] contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software"[1] seems just plain incorrect. If they fulfil their statements, then it may be arguably true, but not yet. If Sun gets all the praise today, it reduces the incentive for them to continue doing the right thing.
1. http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/sun_s_choice_...
c) When I speak about a piece of free software I generally thank the authors, I don't usually start complaining about all the rest of software they may have written which isn't free.
I can't see the relevance of this comment.
d) Stallman, like others, may be tired of having to complain for everything and wellcome the chance to congratulate on something.
Maybe. Best not to go overboard too far from land, though.
[...]
Anyway I haven't checked exactly what is available, maybe I'm missing something. We can talk specifics if you want. Why do you think the missing parts are "most of it"?
I don't. I meant that Sun announced that they will release *almost* enough for a buildable JDK in the first half of next year and that most of the releases seem to be in the future. http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#b4
Hope that explains,
"Xavi Drudis Ferran" xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
Why all the premature Sun-bathing?
Maybe because of: a) From what I've heard they must have released the JRE for SE, ME and EE, which is no small thing. [...]
Misreporting is widespread, even from some FSFE Fellows. As far as I can tell, there is one component of the JRE for SE so far and Sun notes "what you don't get with the source code: the class libraries that in combination with the virtual machine make a Java Runtime Environment (JRE) or Java Developers Kit (JDK)." https://openjdk.dev.java.net/hotspot/
Ops. I thought class libraries were available :(.
I didn't find any way to get the JRE for EE under GPL yet and I don't even understand ME enough to know what I'm looking for.
I read contradictory reports on EE. I believe it's not yet GPL, but since sun calls CDDL open source, reporters throw it in the article.
Same here about JavaME.
I remember the rejoicing when Netscape released their browser code. I also remember how long it has taken for Mozilla and Gnuzilla to make that into a good free software project. Will it take similar struggles to use Sun's contributions in working free software?
Possibly. Yet it was good news, tha trelease.
That's silly. Sun hasn't done most of it yet: we can say it's good news and we look forward to it, without suggesting the actions so far are sufficient. Saying today that Sun has "with this contribution,
How did anyone suggest it's sufficient ?
have[sic] contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software"[1] seems just plain incorrect. If they fulfil their statements, then it may be arguably true, but not yet. If Sun gets all the praise today, it reduces the incentive for them to continue doing the right thing.
Well I don't have the statitstics but it could be true. In any case I have no bais to argue it .
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/sun_s_choice_...
c) When I speak about a piece of free software I generally thank the authors, I don't usually start complaining about all the rest of software they may have written which isn't free.
I can't see the relevance of this comment.
The idea was: what is not available today under GPL wasn't available yesterday either, so the news is what has been released, not the parts remaining as they were. I don't think it's fair to just ignore what has been released, even if it's not all. Specially considering there's at least some promise for more.
Anyway I haven't checked exactly what is available, maybe I'm missing something. We can talk specifics if you want. Why do you think the missing parts are "most of it"?
I don't. I meant that Sun announced that they will release *almost* enough for a buildable JDK in the first half of next year and that most of the releases seem to be in the future. http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#b4
Yes. That's undefinite and worrying, "almost". I thought the most needed part was the class libraries that I thought was included. The rest had some free implementations, although the JVM and compiler might not have full replacements. So I didn't pay too much attention to the incomplete JDK. It's sad that the class libraries are not available today (but no sadder than it was last week). BUt I guess they have encumbrances they can't easily get rid of (not that they haven't had time in 10 years...)
Hope that explains,
Yes, thanks for pointing this out.
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 15:34 +0100, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
Ops. I thought class libraries were available :(.
No. To be clear, it's "just":
* the javac compiler (which we already have a free equivalent for); * the HotSpot virtual machine (which there are poorer equivalents for); * the help/documentation system
Even those few things are a lot of code, though.
In terms of the class libraries, what I read on the blogosphere was that the majority of the library would be free, and the rest would be filled in either by GNU Classpath, or new code yet to be written.
I think the headline is that the class libraries will be free in the future, since they were really the "Java trap", but the release of HotSpot is also very important.
Cheers,
Alex.
PS list, I would have thought the drop of OpenOffice.org made Sun far and away the biggest contributor of code years ago. Have you seen how big that thing is?! :o>
"Xavi Drudis Ferran" xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
Well I don't have the statitstics but it could be true. In any case I have no bais to argue it .
In god we trust -- all others must bring data.
The idea was: what is not available today under GPL wasn't available yesterday either, so the news is what has been released, not the parts remaining as they were.
Exactly. The news is what has been released: hotspot and javac, the bits the free software java implementors seem to have mostly replaced. Interesting, but not world-shattering. Instead, what's getting in the news is "Sun has GPL'd Java" which is not yet true.
I don't think it's fair to just ignore what has been released, even if it's not all. Specially considering there's at least some promise for more.
I don't ask to ignore it, just report it accurately. The promise of more is welcome, but computers don't run code on promises.
Regards,
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
"with this contribution, have[sic] contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software"[1] seems just plain incorrect.
Well, right now it's only a promise to release the source, but that promise is backed up by prior action - the GPLing of Star Office.
(I'm not forgetting the mistakes they made when doing that. Just pointing out that it is credible that they will indeed GPL what they say they will.)
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 12:20 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Well, right now it's only a promise to release the source
Would it make sense /business wise/ not to release the rest of the code? I think that they have crossed clearly the no-return point, but I may be mistaken. bye stef
Stefano Maffulli stef@zoomata.com writes:
Would it make sense /business wise/ not to release the rest of the code?
Maybe.
If they have a product with 10 parts, they might want to continue their current business model with that product. So they might free 9 parts and keep one token part proprietary.
I don't know if this is the case - I don't know much about Sun's business models, or about their Java products. But it's possible.
On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 20:59 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Stefano Maffulli stef@zoomata.com writes:
Would it make sense /business wise/ not to release the rest of the code?
If they have a product with 10 parts, they might want to continue their current business model with that product. So they might free 9 parts and keep one token part proprietary.
From what I've read, it's certain that not all of the Java standard API
will be GPL'd : there will be holes because Sun don't have all the rights to code.
However, what is being suggested is that Java SE 6 will be shipped more or less as-is (this is the next release being prepared, and is apparently almost ready), while Java SE 7 (which is what is being GPL'd) would be entirely Free - requiring the "holes" to be filled in.
It will take time for the stack, as shipped by Sun for production use, comes with equivalent source code. We're probably talking a couple of years, if we're honest, but I don't see anything on their roadmap which suggests a medium/long term Free/proprietary mix. So, you could rightly celebrate this at a number of points: the initial announcement, the release of the standard VM, the release of the runtime API, the release of a production version based on Free code - it's just different points on the road.
It's a bit like when they released StarOffice: the first few releases of OpenOffice.org and StarOffice were quite different, based on different code and with different abilities. Over time, that's changed, and StarOffice is now built from OpenOffice.org, and the proprietary parts have been replaced by Free alternatives. There are still odd proprietary bits - a migration wizard, for example - but the trend is pretty obvious.
I'm hopeful that this whole process will be a lot quicker with Java too, since the system is much smaller compared to OOo, and there are already people working on similar systems - I think community involvement will be a lot stronger.
Cheers,
Alex.
Well, right now it's only a promise to release the source, but that promise is backed up by prior action - the GPLing of Star Office.
I think Star Office is not under the GPL?
A version of Star Office was released under the LGPL (not the GPL) as OpenOffice. Star Office has always been under a non-free softwre license.
"Wisely Koh" wiselykoh@gmail.com writes:
I think Star Office is not under the GPL?
Yes, but they released a copy of (most of) Star Office under the GPL, with the new name "OpenOffice.org".
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 08:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I think Star Office is not under the GPL?
Yes, but they released a copy of (most of) Star Office under the GPL, with the new name "OpenOffice.org".
LGPL, not GPL.
Alfred, do you understand the LGPL can be changed to GPL at any time by anyone? And why the f**k matters anyway?
Stop this stupid correcting people, you're no god nor the keeper of the truth about Free Software.
And give us a break! Your postings just irritate people and are deterring people from participation.
do you understand the LGPL can be changed to GPL at any time by anyone?
Yes, and OpenOffice is not licensed under the GPL unless you fork OpenOffice, and actually use that clause. From which point it will not be OpenOffice, but a fork of it.
It is quite simply, and doesn't require you to use foul language.
On 16-Nov-2006, simo wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 08:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Yes, but they released a copy of (most of) Star Office under the GPL, with the new name "OpenOffice.org".
LGPL, not GPL.
Alfred, do you understand the LGPL can be changed to GPL at any time by anyone? And why the f**k matters anyway?
It does matter, because LGPL is a less-strong copyleft than the GPL. If it didn't matter, the FSF wouldn't have made two separate licenses.
And give us a break! Your postings just irritate people and are deterring people from participation.
I saw nothing in Alfred's post but a polite, factual correction on a point that should be of interest to most readers of this list. I certainly don't find such posts irritating (so long as they only go to the list, of course).
On 17-Nov-2006, Wisely Koh wrote:
do you understand the LGPL can be changed to GPL at any time by anyone?
This is the first time I heard of this
It's an explicit grant in the LGPL, section 3 of that license.
3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...]
URL:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
may I ask if the converse is true, ie. GPL -> LGPL?
The GPL gives no such explicit grant, so no.
do you understand the LGPL can be changed to GPL at any time by anyone?
This is the first time I heard of this, may I ask if the converse is true, ie. GPL -> LGPL?
No, that would do allow people to make the GPL weaker, subverting the whole point of the GPL. Here is the relevant section from the Lesser GPL version 2:
| 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public | License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do | this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so | that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, | instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the | ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify | that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in | these notices.
Ter, 2006-11-14 às 12:47 +0100, Xavi Drudis Ferran escreveu:
I've always had the impression that people at Sun don't understand free software, but anyway we have to admit they have done huge contributions, maybe not in philosophy but at least in code. Maybe they're a bit erratic sometimes, but a lot of what they do is right, so let's take it and thank it while we do what we can to explain the rest to them.
I think part of the "erratic" fame Sun had was in great part due to Scott McNealy.
Since he's out of the picture, Sun does seem to have improved in this regard.
Enormously... even OpenSolaris is now considering the GPL...
Rui
On 14-Nov-2006, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
I've always had the impression that people at Sun don't understand free software, but anyway we have to admit they have done huge contributions, maybe not in philosophy but at least in code. Maybe they're a bit erratic sometimes, but a lot of what they do is right, so let's take it and thank it while we do what we can to explain the rest to them.
A corporation loves to pretend that it has one mind and one voice, but as I hope we all know, corporations are served by many minds with disparate opinions and preferences for action. That a corporation appears to have multiple-personality disorder should be no surprise.
As in so many other cases, this "sudden" good news mostly happened because one person inside the corporation decided it should, and had the long-term strength to ensure that it did, with the help of some and despite the resistance of others.
And I bet that nobody else will talk about this, so I will: there was internal resistance, and it was passionate. I disagreed, but I have a lot of respect for those people; they had good arguments that we need to keep carefully in mind, going forward. There are people who are bruised and hurting now and really unsure that this is the right path. I totally hope that, in a couple of years, this will be a tempest in a teapot, seen in the rear-view mirror, and that we’re still all on the same team.
URL:http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/11/12/OSS-Java#p-1
On 15-Nov-2006, Ben Finney wrote:
As in so many other cases, this "sudden" good news mostly happened because one person inside the corporation decided it should, and had the long-term strength to ensure that it did, with the help of some and despite the resistance of others.
Here's another take on this, giving a historical perspective of people whose actions brought Java to the point of this week's announcement.
The People Who Brought You FOSS Java
[...] I thought I'd take a few moments to highlight some of the people who have been working for years to push this effort slowly, relentlessly forward. [...] Many of the folks on this list risked their jobs to carry forward the belief that Java wasn't really open until it was Open Source.
URL:http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/2006/11/the_people_who_.html
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 04:47:15PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Sean DALY sean.daly@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Here's a nice little vid of RMS on the Sun site! http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/customers.jsp
Can someone post the URL of the actual video if it's playable in free software not mentioned above, please?
There are now links to Ogg Theora downloads on the page.
Am Montag, dem 13. Nov 2006 schrieb Sean DALY:
Here's a nice little vid of RMS on the Sun site!
I can't view it. What is he saying?
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:10 +0100, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
Am Montag, dem 13. Nov 2006 schrieb Sean DALY:
Here's a nice little vid of RMS on the Sun site!
I can't view it. What is he saying?
My own transcriptions of RMS and Moglen speeches are here:
http://guerby.org/blog/index.php/2006/11/13/127-great-news-for-free-software << Great news for free software
Sun Microsystems has choosen the GNU General Public Licence to open its Java technology: see the official annoucement page.
Here is my transcription of the small Richard Stallman video available on Sun site:
It will be very good that the Java trap won't exist anymore, it will be a thing of the past. That kind of problem can still exist in other areas but it won't exist for Java anymore. The GNU General Public Licence is the most popular, most widely used free software licence. The special thing about this licence is that it's a copyleft licence, that is to say all versions of the program must carry the same licence so the freedoms that the GNU GPL gives to the users must reach all the users of the program and that's the purpose for which I wrote it. I think Sun has, well with this contribution, has contributed more than any other company to the free software community in the form of software. And it shows leadership, it's an example I hope other will follow.
And here my transcription of the Eben Moglen video:
As Java became one of the most important languages for the expression of ideas about technology of programming in the last decade the question of Java's freedom, wether it could be use freely and made part of free software projects, has been a crucial question. Sun's policy of GPL'ing Java, which we are celebrating now, is an extraordinary achievement in returning programming technology to that state of freely available knowledge. Sun has now GPL'ed hardware designs, Sun is GPL'ing Java: that's an extraordinary vote of confidence in this way of sharing information. And we, in the free software world, are very pleased and very flattered to see Sun taking its own very valuable and very important product and agreeing with us that they will be more advantageous to Sun as well as to the rest of the community if they are shared under these rules.
Here is APRIL first reaction (french).
(my web page version has links)
Laurent