Posted on 05/24/2006 9:32:43 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Curious Incident of Sun in the Night-Time
~ by Richard Stallman
Our community has been abuzz with the rumor that Sun has made its implementation Java free software (or "open source"). Community leaders even publicly thanked Sun for its contribution. What is Sun's new contribution to the FLOSS community?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing--and that's what makes the response to this non-incident so curious.
Sun's Java implementation remains proprietary software, just as before. It doesn't come close to meeting the criteria for free software, or the similar but slightly looser criteria for open source. Its source code is available only under an NDA.
So what did Sun actually do? It allowed more convenient redistribution of the binaries of its Java platform. With this change, GNU/Linux distros can include the non-free Sun Java platform, just as some now include the non-free nVidia driver. But they do so only at the cost of being non-free.
The Sun license has one restriction that may ironically reduce the tendency for users to accept non-free software without thinking twice: it insists that the operating system distributor get the user's explicit agreement to the license before letting the user install the code. This means the system cannot silently install Sun's Java platform without warning users they have non-free software, as some GNU/Linux systems silently install the nVidia driver.
If you look closely at Sun's announcement, you will see that it accurately represents these facts. It does not say that Sun's Java platform is free software, or even open source. It only predicts that the platform will be "widely available" on "leading open source platforms". Available, that is, as proprietary software, on terms that deny your freedom.
Why did this non-incident generate a large and confused reaction? Perhaps because people do not read these announcements carefully. Ever since the term "open source" was coined, we have seen companies find ways to use it and their product name in the same sentence. (They don't seem to do this with "free software", though they could if they wanted to.) The careless reader may note the two terms in proximity and falsely assume that one talks about the other.
Some believe that this non-incident represents Sun's exploratory steps towards eventually releasing its Java platform as free software. Let's hope Sun does that some day. We would welcome that, but we should save our appreciation for the day that actually occurs. In the mean time, the Java Trap still lies in wait for the work of programmers who don't take precautions to avoid it.
We in the GNU Project continue developing the GNU Compiler for Java and GNU Classpath; we made great progress in the past year, so our free platform for Java is included in many major GNU/Linux distros. If you want to run Java and have freedom, please join in and help.
Copyright 2006 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
fyi
Interest to who, those who worship that flaming leftist Stallman?
http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html
Check out his political notes before posting any more of his tripe.
If he's that bad, then why are you always the one linking to him...
Second, we don't worship him--and most all of us here really don't care for his political ramblings.
Again, OSS does NOT equal FSF!!! There is a subtle difference.
FSF is part of the Open-Source community. Not the other way around.
I link him so all other freepers besides your small group that loves to quote him and push his software will know what a fanatical leftist he is. Your whining about it each time shows you don't want them to know, either. Tough.
Excuse me--but you're the one who's quoting him all the time.
A little while back, we quoted his GPL along with several other open-source licenses. But that doesn't have anything to do with Stallman.
You're the one pushing his ideology on us. And if that bugs you, then why do you do it?
Finally, I'm not whining about it, you are. If you don't like it, then stop linking to his website.
Rather simple principle, no?
Hilarious! Like I'm the one pushing Stallman when I point out what a leftist he is. That's almost as funny as you referring to your political science schoolwork as "PoliSci", as if you're studying to be an actual scientist LMAO. Switch your major to "PolySci" or expect further laughter.
I see you're trying to change the subject. Your crush on Stallman starting to get a little embarrassing?
You're still pushing Stallman far more than any of us combined--therefore your accusing us of being disciples of him is at best baseless.
And yes, PoliSci is one colloquial abbreviation for political science. Political science is one of the social sciences--as opposed to hard science (Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Earth Science, etc.).
Of course, most of us here already realize this...
I'm obviously not the one pushing Stallman, I'm exposing the fact that his pushers don't like it known he's a radical leftist.
As for Political Science, it's not a "science" of any sort, it's a "liberal art". Which in your case makes perfect sense.
Not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, you'r also massively ignorant of what others try to tell you. And you also refuse to admit when you're wrong. As usual.
But fine. If we're the ones pushing Stallman, I want ten (10) unadulterated posts from any of us that explicitly push Stallman. And discussing the GPL does NOT count. If you can prove it to our faces, then maybe we'll take your word with more than a grain of salt.
Second, Social Sciences are considered part of the current Liberal Arts. Simply put, Liberal Arts studies are any field of study that isn't mostly vocational education in undergrad or are "hard sciences" or technology based.
Most Social sciences, Education, most mathematics, English, etc. are considered Liberal Arts by today's standards. But Physics and computer science wouldn't.
When I originally took up Packaging Engineering, that wasn't Liberal Arts, as it was a direct vocational field of study. So it wasn't considered a Liberal Arts major.
Of course, if you look at the traditional Liberal Arts from the original Universities--the Trivium and the Quadrivium, the studies were in logic, arithmetic, rhetoric, etc. and was designed to provide a full, well-rounded education.
Liberal here comes from the Latin Liberalis--meaning "of free men" and was opposed to the servile/peasantry arts. This idea continues in most of the rest of the world--and is also where we derive the word Liberty.
On a related note, Liberal didn't have its economic and political connotations until the mid-18th century; and since the time of FDR, the typical definitions of Liberal and Conservative got switched around.
So American conservatism is akin to classical liberalism...
LMAO just like a liberal, try to BS his way out of everything. FYI it didn't work.
You still haven't answered my question. Show me the posts.
Second, I'm an above-average student. And I studied history. The topic of medieval universities played a role in not only my art history course, but world history as well.
Third, you continue to portray yourself as an utter fool on these threads. With all due respect, I'd advise you to stop before you dig yourself another hole you can't climb out of.
Thread Jester Ping
A low-volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or removed from the pinglist...
The Copyleftist ping!! hehehe..
YES!!!!!!!!!
Anytime, my FRiends!! 8^)
:)
Not exactly...
There's an OSS ping list as well...8^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.