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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Programming IT Technology

Ghostscript Leaves GNU 106

Posted by timothy from the that's-a-shame dept.
commanderfoxtrot writes "Ghostscript 7.07 has been released. However, this is the last GNU release. They will continue to make releases under the GNU GPL, but because of disagreements over censorship of the AFPL releases and the development model in the GNU release their development process has become incompatible with the goals of the GNU project as interpreted by Richard Stallman."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ghostscript Leaves GNU More

Ghostscript Leaves GNU

Comments Filter:

  • Selfish GNU (Score:3, Insightful)

    by merdark ( 550117 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @09:43PM (#6004115)
    Here we have a company that could easy just release closed source software. They may even make more money that way. Instead they release the current version free for non-commercial use and the previous version GPL free.

    Where the open source community should be thankful for this and applaud a potentially useful mix of semi-open source commerical software with GPL software, all that anyone can do is complain that they promote themselves in the GPL version.

    Well. It's GPL. You can always remove the recommendation from the readme. The high and mighty ideology of the FSF is really really tiring.

    • And whoever put (paraphrased):

      I think that the GPL is actually a bigger threat than MS.

      Is totally right.

      Long live wxWindows license.

    • Re:Selfish GNU (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ichimunki ( 194887 )
      First, RMS is involved with Free Software, so what the "open source" community wants is probably not foremost in his mind. Second, the Free Software movement posits that the only "potentially useful mix of semi-open [whatever that means] source commercial software" is a mix where there is 0% non-Free software. Third, in this case, the FSF is a non-profit charity organization. It may well put their non-profit charter at risk if they are helping private companies by advertising their software.

      Fourth, I dou
  • If I agree to use the software under the GPL, I'm allowed to take GNU Ghostscript and do whatever I want with it, right? (as long as I abide by the GPL). Someone explain why this is a big deal. If I license a product to you under the GPL, the source is forever free...or not?

  • no big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@noSPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:14AM (#6005076) Homepage Journal
    There is really no big deal to this at all. GPL != GNU. The GPL'ed version will still be just as Free. The only difference is that GS won't be an official part of GNU.

    The GNU project (funded by the FSF) is a specific project which is not necessarily exclusively GPL'ed code. It can include any code that is Free as in Freedom. The FSF and RMS have set up certain guidelines for the criteria a project has to meet to be part of the GNU. They didn't suddenly decide on this. Now, you may disagree with those criteria. You may think that simply the promotion of any proprietary product in an unobtrusive manner shouldn't warrant disqualification from GNU, but you're not the one's who set the rules.

    You don't like it, e-mail the FSF and explain to them why not, in a manner which doesn't boil down to the mindless rant. Every club has certain rules -- minimum guidelines for acceptance, and you should look at the GNU project as sort of a club; if you are just on the boundary of meeting those criteria, and are rejected for falling slightly short, you may naturally think that the club is being puritanical and unbending. However, "minimum standards" has to have a certain meaning.

    Personally, I think that these things should be acceptably part of the GNU, so long as the ads are unobtrusive. Mention in the readme file -- aso opposed to a screen-wide pop-up -- counts as unobtrusive in my book. The definition for what counts as an unobtrusive ad should naturally be laid out. (I actually believe the GPL allows coders to, for example, mandate certain short messages be displayed on their progs...e.g., the Vi message about helping children...but, GPL != GNU).

    • I actually believe the GPL allows coders to, for example, mandate certain short messages be displayed on their progs...e.g., the Vi message about helping children...

      No, actually that isn't true. From section 6 of the GPL:
      ... 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.
      Hence you may not add requirements about what sort of notices are displayed, because that is in eff

  • GNU/Ghostscript (Score:5, Funny)

    by hayriye ( 609198 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @01:45AM (#6005214)
    You must call it GNU/Ghostscript...

  • Communist (Score:4, Insightful)

    by droyad ( 412569 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @02:32AM (#6005411)
    "Proprietary software is a social and ethical problem, and the point of GNU is to solve that problem."

    WTF? That just makes someone think the writer is a total nutcase fanatic, with a broad statement like that. It's an absurd claim that really isn't backed up by any facts.

    Yes free software is better, but to say it's a social and ETHICAL problem is going WAY to far. It's almost communist. like say:

    "Selling food for profit is a social and ethical problem, kwikimarts should be closed down"

    • Re:Communist (Score:4, Insightful)

      by u38cg ( 607297 ) <calum@callingthetune.co.uk> on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @08:26AM (#6006632) Homepage
      I don't see anything wrong with that last statement. I find it genuinely offensive that you seem to think it OK for someone to stand by and refuse to part with food unless for money when there are people starving to death.

      Just because capitalism is an effective way of creating massive economies of scale, to the great benefit of some of its users, doesn't mean it can't be wrong.

      As for software, I'm not sure that ethics can be applied to the premises of free and propriatary software. I'm damned sure, though, that they can be applied to its results. Why the hell should I have to use Windows to watch my DVDs? Why can't I improve the software I bought and paid for?

      • Re:Communist (Score:3, Insightful)

        by elflord ( 9269 )
        I find it genuinely offensive that you seem to think it OK for someone to stand by and refuse to part with food unless for money when there are people starving to death.

        Maybe the owner of the food store does donate money to charity. Or maybe not. Most capitalist countries do not forcefully prevent you from donating your resources to needy people. On the other hand, communist countries don't let you choose. Instead, the government decides (and oddly enough, it appears that the "neediest" people in such co

      • I find it genuinely offensive that you seem to think it OK for someone to stand by and refuse to part with food unless for money when there are people starving to death.

        well, if you take the food from the vendor and give it to someone else then you're reducing the value of the goods. if you reduce the financial incentive for the vendor to make the goods then he'll work less efficiently, or even stop working all together. besides, if he goes on the poverty line then you'll provide for him, too, right? al

    • More's the point -- there's a difference between saying something is a "problem" and that it's "evil". I'd suggest the statement might be less inflammatory if it were worded:

      "Proprietary software poses a social and ethical problem, and the point of GNU is to solve that problem."

      Software (and information in general) is a public good, which according to economic theory should be distributed for free (because it can be replicated for free and hence is not scarce; you should only charge for scarce resources).

      • Software (and information in general) is a public good, which according to economic theory should be distributed for free (because it can be replicated for free and hence is not scarce; you should only charge for scarce resources).

        This is a rather stupid argument. The works of William Shakespeare can be copied in perpetuity, as well, but that doesn't mean that plays by Shakespeare aren't a scarce resource. What a hollow philosophy! An information economy doesn't work on the idea that copies are rare and

        • Information does want to be free.

          I hate the "information wants to be free" line. Information doesn't want anything. It doesn't want to be free anymore than my pencil wants to be free. Both are human constructs, and what happens to them are pretty much determined by humans, not their internal nature.

          Information:
          1) Takes effort and resources to produce. This in general makes people want compensation.
          2) Information is power. People in general do not want to give up power, at least not unless there is w
  • If Richard Stallman does not want 'his' GNU-projects to mention non-free software, then I wouldn't bring my own projects to GNU either. You shouldn't act like commercial software doesn't exist or can't coexist, or force people to do so. I consider this a ridiculous restriction and bad politics.

    May I quote a GNU page [gnu.org]: "Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!"
    Thanks Richard, for just wasting it.
    • I should not recommend non-free software I should write a free equivalent.
    • Don't confuse commercial software with proprietary software! Proprietary software is non-free and bad, whereas commercial software is sometimes also free, and thus good in some cases.

      You think it's ridiculous that the GNU project won't let proprietary software "coexist"? The GNU project and the FSF are all about making free software, promoting free software, and if there isn't already a good free program to do something, creating one. It's ridiculous that you expect them to have something with their name o

  • Putting on the flamepants (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomreagan ( 24487 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2003 @11:33AM (#6008097)
    You know, flaming Stallman is getting to be a little bit overdone here. I think that maybe it is time to put some of these things in perspective.

    Stallman's FSF is an entity with an over political purpose. To that end, sub projects that do not align themselves with that overt political purpose probably do not fit within the project and should be excluded. So Ghostscript wasn't aligned and it had to go.

    Those who flame Stallman for his fanatacism or lack of current code shouldn't forget his critical early contributions - without Stallman working himself almost to death in the 80's, sacrificing money, power, time, and big fancy jobs to support his project, there would have been no base of free and open software for Linux to run. Stallman created from sratch (and in many places, single-handedly) the largest and most essential parts for a free operating environment, an open alternative to big,commercial, expensive Unix. Would Linus have really jumped into making a kernel (or had any experience with Minix) if there wasn't a widely available free and open set of libraries, utilitites, compilers, and debuggers to run on the system? Possibly, but it certainly seems less likely.

    While I understand how tiresome and boring it can be to have our morals, ethics, and beliefs get in the way of our more immediate gratification, that doesn't change the fact that Stallman has done more than anyone to get free and open software where it is today. His relentless (and seemingly tireless) dedication to the cause launched free and open software for the world. That we have so many alternative licenses and viewpoints today is owed to his presenting the first so many years ago.

    There is always a role (and a need) for the dedicated, single-minded project that defines a rigorous (and righteous) goal and pursues it unswervingly. I see GNU standing side by side with groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the Medecins Sans Frontiers. It is so easy to forget how important free and open software is to the modern technological, economic, and now even political and social worlds that we find it easier to sneer and laugh at what seems like an anachronism. But Stallman's project is far more relevant and important to the continued success of technology than most will admit.

    If free and open software marches on, then it will always need Stallman and the FSF hoisting the original colors and beating the drum to remind them of the pace, no matter how out of place or out of tune he may seem at the time.
    • While I understand how tiresome and boring it can be to have our morals, ethics, and beliefs get in the way of our more immediate gratification, that doesn't change the fact that Stallman has done more than anyone to get free and open software where it is today.

      I don't know whether this is a misapprehension or a deliberate misconstrual, but let me state this clearly:

      Prohibiting proprietary software is the ethically wrong, allowing developers to make their own choices about how to license their software is

  • Please read free as in freedom (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chthonicdaemon ( 670385 ) on Thursday May 22, 2003 @02:34AM (#6013635) Homepage Journal
    It would seem like not many people posting here have much of an idea what RMS has gone through for his beliefs. Stallman is an atheist, but he believes fervently that all proprietary licences on software are wrong. Not like 'we have to have a choice', but like 'there should be no proprietary code'. It's a big thing to believe in in the current intellectual property-laden world, but it is this belief and not just sharing code with friends that led to the making of the GNU project. Now, you may not have the same extreme views on IP, but respect RMS and the GNU project for still doing what they said they would do - provide and advocate the use of absolutely free (as in freedom) software. Also notice the frequent use of absoulutes here. This is the way RMS is when it comes to software. There is no middle ground where some of your code is proprietary and some isn't. It's all or nothing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.

Close