2000-09-07 15:47

Advogato post for 2000-09-07 15:47:02

Nice: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/2281/1/

I still say "I'll believe it when I see it", but at least I have SOME hopes of seing it.

I steel feel Debian has, in general, acted wrong in the past, but I will apologize and forgive. When the code is in, of course.

I wonder if this means that RMS will declare Debian to be non-free software, though.

Two more random license questions:

a) if KDE code was not properly licensed, then it was not licensed. If it was not licensed, noone could use it. If noone could use it, noone could derive from it. If noone could derive, gtkhtml is illegal, and GNOME should be dumped from Debian. And GNOME should ask forgiveness?

b) Nautilus (and other GNOME programs) are GPL and link (optionally) to mozilla. Mozilla is still not compatible with the GPL. Shouldn't those programs be declared "not properly licensed" by Debian, too?

My answers: no and no. But neither should KDE have had to take as much crap when others are allowed to get away with it.

2000-09-06 17:19

Advogato post for 2000-09-06 17:19:31

mazeone: If I give a copy of whatever to Joe, he is now in compliance, because accepting the copy is legal (he is not forced to assure MY compliance), and the copy contains only GPLd code. You could argue that I would be breaking the license one last time, but what's another stripe on the tiger? ;-)

brother: It's not a matter of black helicopters, at all. It's a matter of having a package (kdelibs) that Debian already said has no licensing problems, and still it never gets into Debian, after many many months. Why should I believe KDE will change their minds? After all, again, it was not licensing that kept kdelibs out! In fact, I still have not seen any rational explanation on why kdelibs was removed in the first place, except that they were wrong about the license of something in it (gettext). They were wrong. They knew it. Did they put it back? Of course not.

Besides, didn't knew that posting something in my diary was yelling ;-)

nymia: Odds of what? Odds of having fun coding? Probably. Odds of finding people to use the code? I doubt it. Odds of being sued? There are none whatsoever. The solution is so trivial (and described below) that it makes no sense to even whine.

Believe it or not, I am now totally relaxed. Since I don't give a damn about the whole bunch anymore, they can do whatever they want, including sueing me, if they really want to. They are dead to me.

2000-09-06 13:21

Advogato post for 2000-09-06 13:21:54

Joey, if Debian includes KDE now, I will be happy to apologize. BTW: Debian can just get a copy, you are excepted by section 4, which RMS told me is the one about forfeiting rights. You will be in compliance, and you can keep on redistributing it, so Debian still has no excuse. Go ahead, MAKE ME APOLOGIZE, that's what I want most than anything.

Tladuca: what you see here is just rage and frustration. Because that's about all I have left in me regarding RMS, the FSF, etc. If it bothers you, too bad, really. I'm gonna keep on coding, but I now know that whatever we do we will never get the respect of the FSF, or RMS, because they seem to just dislike us for politics, because I refuse to believe this hackneyed forgiveness thing is serious, since it's trivial to fix (even if you take the most hardcore position on it). Too bad for them. I don't care anymore.

And after all, if RMS really believed this about forfeiture, wouldn't he have said that in one of his previous statements about the subject? That's why I believe he is just making it up as he goes.

2000-09-05 20:31

Advogato post for 2000-09-05 20:31:43

Ok, I swear this is my last entry of today.

So that people can understand why RMS pisses me off so much: for YEARS he has been saying that the problem with KDE was that the QPL and the GPL were incompatible, and that if they were not incompatible, there would be no problem.

That is also what Debian has been saying (and saying, and saying, and...).

And now that Qt is GPL, lo and behold, "oh, yeah, KDE is still illegal".

Long ago, I saw someone write: "They will not be happy until Qt is GPL". Well not even then, it seems.

BTW: I got one reply telling me where the GPL says about forfeiting rights.

Section 4:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Just so you see how stupid this is:

This would mean that if I combined Qt and GPL code from the FSF, and give it to Joe (example person), then it's illegal for me to use and distribute that code from now on. But not for Joe, because now Joe is in compliance and excepted!

Then, I must ask Joe to give me a copy. Now, because of the GPL's section 6, I now have a legal license to keep on coding:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Now, does it mean I have to find someone who has never used KDE, give him a copy of the CVS tree and the argument is void? Yes. This is one of the reasons why the GPL is BADLY WRITTEN.

2000-09-05 17:46

Advogato post for 2000-09-05 17:46:55

To those saying "oh, no, Debian was just waiting for the licensing problems to clear up", read and cry:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-0009/msg00270.html

--------------

> > I guess RevKrusty may want to put his packages into Debian?
>
> He already uploaded kdelibs, I didn't see if it was installed.

I was wondering what happened to it? It didn't appear in the archives, it wasn't moved to REJECT or DONE, it just disappeared. I was wondering if there was some long flame war on debian-private that I was missing.

--------------

More of the same old crap. Reasons why you should never trust your code to politicians.

Edition: For honesty's sake, I will not delete what I had written. However, it seems the packages are still in incoming. Le's wait and see. Now that RMS has given Debian yet another straw to grasp with the forgiveness stuff, I have no hopes of KDE getting into Debian, though.

2000-09-05 15:46

Advogato post for 2000-09-05 15:46:15

Ok, I am now sure of several things:

a) If you whine loud enough, you will get what you want.

b) RMS is making up his interpretation of the GPL as he goes

c) Debian will still not ship KDE, because now they believe RMS's strange idea that we need "forgiveness". Addition: I asked RMS where specifically in the GPL it says anything about forfeiting rights. Because I sure can't find it :-P

All in all, a crappy day for free software.

2000-08-28 16:22

Advogato post for 2000-08-28 16:22:01

Just noticed that I said in the previous entry that the river world tetralogy was written by J.G. Ballrd.... yikes.

First, it's written by Philip Jose Farmer (and should have remembered because he has an alter egp called Peter Jairus Frigate, and the initials wouldn't match with J.G. Ballard ;-)

Also, strangely it's not a tetralogy, because I found a 5th volume ;-)

Anyway, read the 5th volume, finished the patagonian express (I really like the book, strangely, the train shown in the cover is one that is NOT in the book!) and started Tom Wolfe's "A man in full".

I must say I can't read Orson Scott Card. maybe it's just a lousy book (xenocide), but it's unreadable.

I am doing SOME coding, too ;-)

2000-08-24 20:24

Advogato post for 2000-08-24 20:24:19

First, I am curious, why is advogato now on advogato.alancoxonachip.com, and why is it asking me for renewed authentication?

Anyway, it's not as if anyone cares what I put here, so I care not about security ;-)

You know, I now have decided there is a good side to 45 minutes commutes. I can read a lot more!

This is what I have read in the last two weeks or so:

  • Hannibal
  • The drum's skin (Nice novel by Arturo Pérez-Reverte)
  • 3 pieces of JG Ballard's river world tetralogy (I can't find the third piece) Really nice!
  • the 6th piece of Benford's galactic center hexalogy Crap!
  • One book by Ann Rice. I can't even remember the name, and honestly they all melt in memory... this is the one where the ancient egypcian queen comes awakes. I don't think I will ever read another one of these.

And now I'm starting Paul Theroux's "The patagonian express", which is, so far, awfully good. "'This is like the trans-siberian', he said. 'No it isn't', I replied" is a seemingly stupid line that I can't get out of my head.

Not to mention:

"I had casually mentioned to her that I had been to Upper burma and Africa. I had described Leopold Bloom's love of 'the faint tang of urine'in the kidneys he had for breakfast. I had shown a knowledge of the Buddhism and the eating habits of Bushmen in the kalahari and Gandhi's early married life. I was a fairly interesting person, was I not? But not once in the entire conversation had she asked me a single question."

Now, Paul Theroux really sounds like a pretentious bore, but it's still fun, so as far as I am concerned, he should keep on being one ;-)

2000-08-16 18:23

Advogato post for 2000-08-16 18:23:31

Oh, joy, I'm coding :-) I'm doing a bunch of things, trying to decide on a largish project to tackle (that is not as scary as porting KRN to KDE2).

One of the things is a KDE style, I call Note, although it could be called flat.

Also, I'm trying to look at Qt designer, with some trouble, because there is something in one of the source files that totally drives gcc insane, making it eat a bazillion megabytes of RAM.

The generated XML files are very readable. I am curious whether there is support for runtime loading of them. I used to use that with Kdevelop's dialog editor instead of the code generation route, and it's much cooler.

2000-08-09 19:58

Advogato post for 2000-08-09 19:58:29

Ok, so there goes the idea of speedy reporting ;-)

I did present my thing after the previous post, and I did it in front of a whole lot of people. It went well, even if a bit faster than I expected. The Q&A part was nice, and only one question contained the word license ;-)

Later that same day, RMS gave his speech in the same place (yes, he had a bigger audience ;-). It was his usual speech, basically the same thing you can read in the FSF's web page.

Some nuggets: "we created GNOME because of the terrible threat of KDE". There you have it GNOME guys and gals, you only exist because of us, and to you GNOME fans, you can now consider GNOME a side effect of KDE, be thankful and stop bickering ;-)

He did say KDE is illegal, and I decided NOT to ask him when had he become a lawyer and/or judge. He didn't mention his lates "implicit permission is given" position, either.

However, after finally seing him in person, I can understand why he has such rabid fans. He is kinda inspirational. As long as you are under 25. I would consider anyone older that that, who still swallows it as uncritically as most of the audience did, immature.

And yes, he did say that you can always go flip burgers and code in your (obviously copious) free time.

And yes, he did say that another alternative is to work developing custom software, which is "90% of the software industry", and that would not be unethical.

I have a VERY big problem with that argument, which I should some day write down carefully.

The basics are that the custom software written for, say, a aerospace company would be just as useful for another. In fact, it's that software's EXTREME usefulness to other companies what keeps the software closed.

Consider that it's so useful that a company is willing to pay for the entire development!

And if that software would be useful for "the neighbour", then that software's license presents the same ethical imperatives as any other. You, developer of custom software, are creating software that is useful for "the neighbour", giving it to others, and forbidding those others help "the neighbour" (or at least you are doing just the same as if you were a Word developer).

Now, I don't believe free software development is ethically superior to proprietary software development, but RMS does.

And since he does, he either has not noticed this, or he has two incompatible positions. Your pick.

Or, of course, I'm totally wrong. But I'd like some reasons why, if you believe that. A good one would be "here is a way in which developing proprietary custom software for a company is different from developing proprietary software for users".

Later that night, we had our speakers' and organizers' dinner.... where there were about 50 who were not any of those things.

That dinner kinda sucked, in the food sense, but the organization of the whole thing was just too good for one bad menu choice (rice & chicken) to be considered :-)

Then (considerably amount of beer in me) I went to the hotel, and overslept next morning, missing Julio Santa Cruz's stuff (sorry julio), saw another one I can't recall, said goodbye to everyone, missed RMS's second speech (if I had seen it, I would have arrived home way too late), and left.

All in all, fun, informative, some good stuff to be seen, saw a lot of people I had only known by email, and a lot of people I had not seen in a long while and missed (the guys from UNER, UTN and UNL!).

I got WAY too tired from this, so I came to work in a zombie fashion on monday, closed a course, and stayed home yesterday... and that's pretty much it :-)

Contents © 2000-2019 Roberto Alsina