×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Glibc Is Finally Free Software

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the after-the-fact dept.

GNU is Not Unix 337

WebMink writes "Despite the fervour of some, the dark secret of every GNU/Linux distribution is that, until August 18 this year, it depended on software that was under a non-Free license — incompatible with the Open Source Definition and non-Free according to Debian and the FSF. A long tale of tenacity and software archeology has finally led to that software appearing under the 3-clause BSD license — ironically, at the behest of an Oracle VP. The result is that glibc, portmap and NFS are no longer tainted."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

337 comments

Yea.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33387876)

Im pretty sure this is false

Re:Yea.. (2)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388552)

Grats, but why did that hypocritical Stallman allow Glibc to keep the G in identical circumstances to the XEmacs situation and demonized us?

Re:Yea.. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388828)

stallman's head is so far up his own ass...

They released it under the BSD license? (-1, Troll)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33387894)

The GPL just isn't free enough for me.

It just sucks up BSD code and never gives anything back.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33387930)

I've got an idea! What we really need is some kind of license that's like BSD, but requires people distributing derived works to do so under the same license. I can't believe nobody's thought of this yet!

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33387988)

it's called "putting it in the public domain"

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388012)

copyright laws are less of a liabilty than public domain becuase copyright laws are here to stay.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (4, Interesting)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388042)

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (4, Informative)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388128)

What do you mean by, "legally protect them to be in public domain?" When something is in the public domain, absolutely anyone can use it in any way they want. Including using it as part of a non-free, non-public domain product. They can do whatever they want with it, just as everyone else can.

Perhaps you're asking about copyfraud, where someone falsely claims to have exclusive rights to a work in the public domain? For example, publishing a copy of Shakespeare's plays and putting a notice on it that says, "No part of this may be reproduced without permission from the publisher." That's just lying. A license like GPL wouldn't prevent that either. Licenses only apply to people who are honest or who get caught. If someone intentionally lies about what rights they have, the only thing you can do is call them on it (and sue them if you're sufficiently motivated).

Or maybe you're just asking what the mechanism is? In most countries, all you need to do is stick a notice on it saying, "This work is in the public domain."

Irrevocability of public domain dedication? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388154)

Is there a mechanism that will ensure that a dedication to the public domain remains effective even if the entity that put something in the public domain is acquired, and the acquiring entity tries to revoke the dedication?

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication? (3, Interesting)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388222)

In most countries, yes it's irrevocable. Once you voluntarily place something in the public domain, that's that. I believe there are a few countries (Germany?) where things are more ambiguous and the law doesn't recognize the concept of public domain in the same way it does elsewhere. The Creative Commons folks have been developing a "public domain equivalent" license which is supposed to be somehow more reliable in those countries.

Re:Irrevocability of public domain dedication? (1)

glebovitz (202712) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388586)

Yes, but how do you prove it is the public domain? If code is floating around without any license and I include it in my proprietary software, on what grounds can you sue me? If there is nothing that says I have to attribute the copyright to the original author, then what stops me from absorbing the code into my code base. If I start changing the code, then is the modified code still in the public domain?

On the other hand, if you force a public license on the code with agreements to attribute and disclose its use, and contribute modifications back to the public then the code and its modifications stay public.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388500)

Yes, I mean something along the lines of copyfraud. More notably, how can I defend a work against copyfraud, what sort of evidence do I need?

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (1, Informative)

Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388144)

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL. But more to the point, if you put something into the public domain, then you by definition should be expecting that other people will take your work and close it up inside their own products/works. If you don't want that, then you don't want the public domain.

If what you want is "public domain" in the sense that it's open for anyone to look at, use, and modify and you want to keep it that way when others use/modify it, then what you want is the GPL.

Shut The Fuck Up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388416)

You fucking piece of garbage.

No wonder the computing world despises GNU and GNUfreaks like you.

Fucking viral piece of shit license.

Re:Shut The Fuck Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388682)

Is this just a troll or are there people who seriously get this upset over a software license?
If so can I get a link to a description of the controversy please?

Serious question.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (3, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388540)

How exactly do you put something into public domain legally, such that you can legally protect them to be in public domain? Really, serious question.

It is a very good question, and the answer is to use the GPL.

Um, WTF? GPL is absolutely not similar to public domain; the gpl-violations people repeatedly make this very clear.

A better answer is, "that's not very clear, could you give an example of what you mean?". About the only thing I think it can sanely mean, is how to prevent other people from claiming it as their work (ie, plagiarism) and suing people (kinda like SCO suing people over Novell's copyrighted code). Maybe something like CC-zero is the answer (you keep a copyright, so you can sue them for... I think it was "slander of title" that Novell used), maybe just make sure your copy with the non-copyright notice gets well indexed by the search engines so any potential victims can find it when they need to defend themselves, maybe plagiarism can be a suable offence separately from copyright violation (I don't think that's the case here in the US, but I hear it might be in much of Europe).

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (3, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388710)

You keep saying "public domain", but you are using it to define nearly the opposite concept.

I like to think of it this way. Least free to most free: GPL, BSD/MIT, Public Domain. GPL is very restrictive as to what the licensee can or cannot do with the work. BSD/MIT both allow nearly any use/modification/extension, but requires the licensee to retain copyright notices. Public Domain requires neither; anyone can use and abuse it without retaining copyright notices.

So is GPL more or less free than a commercial license? Usually less free, but it depends on what you want. The GPL is more restrictive in that source code must be provided, no charge, to anyone who gets a binary copy. Typical mega-corporation commercial licenses prevent modification or extension, and many times even use and reverse-engineering, but I'd say that smaller companies tend to be less restrictive in their licenses than the GPL (barring, of course, redistribution of the original source code).

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388192)

some kind of license that's like BSD, but requires people distributing derived works to do so under the same license

it's called "putting it in the public domain"

Except that it's not. Public domain works come with no restrictions at all, so you can't "require" anything.

Enhancing and transforming public domain work, then putting it under your own copyright is not only perfectly legal - it's the entire fscking point of the public domain. (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.)

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388470)

Public domain will depend on the country definition, CC zero might do best.

Sleepycat (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388016)

You're looking for the Sleepycat license [opensource.org] used by Oracle's Berkeley DB. It's a new-style BSD license with one additional clause that implements a copyleft.

Re:Sleepycat (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388096)

It's an improvement over the GPL at least. I read and understood it in completion in < 5 minutes. A person can't truly understand the GPL even after spending > 3 months studying it; most /.'ers are aware only of a tiny (in)significant portion. Sleepycat isn't NEARLY as comprehensive, but simplicity is usually well worth that loss.

Re:Sleepycat (5, Insightful)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388636)

You aren't supposed to read the GPL, only its preamble. The rest of meant for lawyers and is as long as it takes to be bulletproof.

Re:Sleepycat (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388726)

Any legal agreement that can't be simplified for the common person to understand is not one that should be enforced or signed by that person. I have read the GPL many times over the years (as well as US copyright law) and while I can grok most of the GPL, parts of it continue to elude me. Its textual representation reminds me of bad software writing, decidedly worse than average federal law standards. State law, on the other hand....

Re:Sleepycat (1, Insightful)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388756)

That's that the preamble is for.

Re:Sleepycat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388832)

No. A preamble is an explanation and normally non-binding unless interpretation is up for question (and even then not so much). I don't care about the stated intentions, I care about what the agreement actually does. The preamble may as well contradict everything written below it.

Re:Sleepycat (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388820)

I have read the GPL many times over the years (as well as US copyright law) and while I can grok most of the GPL, parts of it continue to elude me. Its textual representation reminds me of bad software writing, decidedly worse than average federal law standards.

At the very least, it's better than the English translation of the Treaty of Armens [memory-alpha.org].

Different Audiences (5, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388740)

Sleepycat isn't NEARLY as comprehensive, but simplicity is usually well worth that loss.

When dealing with normal, reasonable people I agree because your audience is trying their best to understand the information you are trying to impart. When dealing with the law your audience is deliberately trying to misinterpret everything you have said to their advantage so you need everything specified absolutely precisely so that there is no possible way they can do that.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (0, Troll)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#33387976)

Lol. The twit who moded that "insightful" need to lookup irony.

Baldrick, do you know what irony is? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388280)

Yeah, it's like goldy or bronzey, only it's made of iron.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33387990)

I'm sorry, but the BSD license isn't free enough for me. The BSD license does nothing to let me write code that, for example, hacks into people's bank accounts and transfers all their money to mine. A truly FREE license would make that legal.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388722)

This license doesn't work like a fishing license.

typical lack of comprehension (2, Informative)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388008)

Or, should I say, typical lack of reading the friendly article.

The only significant restriction imposed, entirely reasonable to most eyes then, was to say that the module itself could not be sold as-is, only as part of a larger work.

Re:typical lack of comprehension (-1, Redundant)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388026)

How the hell would I have gotten second post if I had read the fucking article?

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (-1, Troll)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388124)

Here's your argumentation in one old XKCD-style doodle of mine: http://arka.foi.hr/~lmarcetic/pic/strip/001_bsdvsgpl.png [arka.foi.hr]

BSD works in a world without copyright. There is no such world. Therefore, BSD does not work.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (1, Insightful)

Hangin10 (704729) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388292)

What.. how... huh?

All that shows is someone not understanding their chosen license and getting angry that they didn't get credit for their work.

Restrictions in the name of freedom is not freedom. Perhaps what you mean is that BSD doesn't work quite so well in a world where people hunger for fame and recognition. I'd bet Data would be BSD if Soong lived long enough to perfect things.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388598)

I think that was exactly the GP's point. He took the OP seriously when he sarcastically wrote that BSD code isn't being contributed to, and replied with a comic that showed how silly that chosen mentality is.

Still, some might say the choice of reciprocation is the absolute greatest thing about the BSD. The world can't conform to a single viewpoint, and there are legitimate scenarios in which code cannot be released. It's still recommended however that a person contribute back, but that's totally left up to the licenser's discretion. In other words, the INTENT of the BSD license isn't to foster closed software. The intent is to provide code with the least amount of attached restrictions, and to encourage (not mandate) the custom of open software.

I'll sum up the last paragraph with an example. Is it acceptable for someone to keep their simple modifications to BSDed software, if those changes are considered useful? Yes. Is it morally right to do so? No, and at the same time, yes. There are other factors that can take precedence. But primarily, the interpretation of whether it is right or wrong depends upon the peer interaction ethic on which one was raised.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388276)

Just like you're never really free, unless you have the freedom to lock people up.

Amusingly, when people use that extra freedom the BSD-license provides, people like you complain.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388314)

Don't, in this context, confuse "free" with "open", or, not in this context, underestimate the suffering caused by fallacious analogies.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (2, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388574)

The GPL has more restrictions than the old Sun RPC license. Glibc had already been free software, the only difference is that now satisfies some misguided notions some people have, that is all.

We really need to get away with this obsessive legality, and just start giving code away. Someone should be able to say "here, take my code and use it" without someone lecturing them on what they're doing wrong while the free software song is sung out of key in the background. Why don't people want to write or even use free software? Because of all the baggage that comes along with it.

Re:They released it under the BSD license? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388788)

Have you really missed all the people that do just let people take their code and use it?

Fuck yeah! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33387906)

Fuck yeah, nothing will change!

Linux is too mainstream now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33387938)

I the epSos.de, used Linux because it was tainted by this dark secret.
Now it is not as cool as it was anymore.

The sweetness of doing prohibited mastery against the oppressing doctrine is gone.
I am in helpless in tears now.

that's great now fix NFS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33387946)

I can't fucking upload shit to my NAS without my desktop freezing (Ubuntu 10.04) and having to physically shut off my machine. fuck samba

Re:that's great now fix NFS (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388030)

I can't fucking upload shit to my NAS without my desktop freezing

A computer is not a toilet.
Try uploading files instead.

Re:that's great now fix NFS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388068)

He is uploading files...files full of German scat porn.

What was the original license? What's the new one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33387968)

I read the article. And I can't find reference to what the original license text is, nor even what the new license text is. It mentions that the code could not be sold on it's own, but only as part of a larger work. Which, I assume, is what made the license incompatible with "freedom". But, I can't see the full license.

Can someone more smart (or more persistent) please post both licenses?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (5, Informative)

WebMink (258041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388040)

The original license text was:

/*
* Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for
* unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape
* media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Users
* may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized
* to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
* program developed by the user.
*
* SUN RPC IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING THE
* WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
* PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
*
* Sun RPC is provided with no support and without any obligation on the
* part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
* modification or enhancement.
*
* SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
* INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY SUN RPC
* OR ANY PART THEREOF.
*
* In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
* or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
* Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
*
* Sun Microsystems, Inc.
* 2550 Garcia Avenue
* Mountain View, California 94043
*/

The new one is:

/*
* Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle America, Inc.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
* met:
*
*     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
*     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
*       copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
*       disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
*       provided with the distribution.
*     * Neither the name of the "Oracle America, Inc." nor the names of its
*       contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*       from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
*   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
*   LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
*   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
*   COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,
*   INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
*   DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
*   GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
*   INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
*   WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
*   NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
*   OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*/

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388142)

Interesting. But how is this "more free"? It's not quite a BSD license if they require the source and binaries contain that notice. Further, what I see is this re-branding of everything from Sun to Oracle all over the place. The latest updates for VirtualBox, OpenOffice and Java did little to patch or improve but most significantly changes everything to containing Oracle branding. I see this as no different.

Calling this more free while also including requirements such as the ones illustrated above it s bit of a mixed message.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (3, Informative)

WebMink (258041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388186)

It's not quite a BSD license if they require the source and binaries contain that notice.

That's a pretty vanilla 3-clause BSD licence just like you'd see anywhere else, I don't see a problem with it.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (4, Informative)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388228)

The original license said:

"Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user."

which breaks most definitions of "free software". You can't give it to someone else without having used it in something, or wrapped it up with something. The new license is a 3-part BSD standard.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388770)

IANAL
but I interpreted it as them giving us the ability to modify the code and redistribute it, provided modified versions don't infringe on their trademarks.
simply, it needs to be distributed with something that isn't glibc/SUN-RPC; which to my understanding means a name change is enough to be allowed to distribute modifications (aka, a fork).

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388288)

yeah, it's like it says oracle now - so it must be a bad thing...

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388396)

First of all, that *is* the BSD license.

Second of all, the previous license was not even FOSS:

* Users
* may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized
* to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
* program developed by the user.

That could be interpreted to greatly limit the redistributability of the code.

So, this is great news.

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (4, Interesting)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388660)

How exactly is this code "copyright 2010", if it was written in the 1980s?

Re:What was the original license? What's the new o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388666)

You couldn't re-distribute under the original license, the particular code as is. You have to re-package it inside another program or product.

Not ironic; more like intentional (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388344)

The submitter seems to think it's "ironic" that the license was changed at the behest of an Oracle VP. But looking at the code above, it seems the non-free portion in question was owned by Sun Microsystems. Sun Microsystems is now Oracle America. When you see the phrase "Oracle America" (as opposed to just plain Oracle), you know they're talking about the former Sun Microsystems.

So this is not "ironic" at all. Oracle America had the power to adjust the license, and Oracle America chose to do so. It makes one wonder why it was so hard to do while the code was still under the independent Sun Microsystems. Patents, maybe?

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388386)

Did you even read the article? They began work on the issue while Sun was still Sun, but it was interrupted by the acquisition by Oracle.

"But then there was some sort of foul-up after it was all agreed and Red Hat (who were making the change) never received documentation of the decision that was sufficient to give them confidence it was all over. They tried contacting people at Sun, but by then acquisition of Sun by Oracle was in full swing and no-one was allowed to make any changes affecting copyrights any more."

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388414)

It's ironic when you look at what happened in the wider context of Oracle's actions regarding open source software, for example OpenSolaris.

Re:Not ironic; more like intentional (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388630)

It makes one wonder why it was so hard to do while the code was still under the independent Sun Microsystems. Patents, maybe?

They might have been holding onto it in hopes of one day monetizing it.

Diffs here (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388184)

From the article:

So, at long last, the licence is changed, glibc is Free software

This text links to a git commit [redhat.com]. Click any of the diffs to read the old and new licenses, as long as you aren't red-green color-blind.

Much better explanation here... (4, Informative)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388018)

http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html [livejournal.com]

This actually gives details.

Re:Much better explanation here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388070)

that's some fine detective work there, lou. excellent for choice for the tl;dr crowd that can't make it to the end of the article where it's linked...

Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...? (4, Funny)

FunPika (1551249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388028)

Seriously, based on the article Oracle probably could have chosen to go all copyright infringement lawsuit-happy on every Linux vendor known to man. But instead they relicensed the old code under a free license...*checks the temperature in Hell*

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388056)

Check again:

1) Oracle gets extra advertising now that they get their name in the code files

2) They get to extend the copyright in these files since the year in the new license was changed to 2010 from ~1984

Sounds kinda evilish to me.

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388272)

They get to extend the copyright in these files since the year in the new license was changed to 2010 from ~1984

Wait! I get it. Disney's Licence Carousel(r) is just around the corner!

Re:Wait what...Oracle isn't being evil...? (2, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388530)

Seriously, based on the article Oracle probably could have chosen to go all copyright infringement lawsuit-happy on every Linux vendor known to man. But instead they relicensed the old code under a free license...*checks the temperature in Hell*

Oracle not being evil? Yeah, I tried to check the temperature down there, too. Unfortunately, all of my equipment loses too much precision in the microkelvin range.

Year of the Linux desktop! (5, Funny)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388046)

Now that Glibc is free we can finally have the year of the Linux desktop we've been waiting for since 2001. I know tons of my friends who would always say "I wanted to use Linux but Glibc isn't free!"

Now with that glaring hole in Linux's offering solved we can move on continuing to ignore the terrible User Experience.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388332)

terrible User Experience

Are you having trouble installing all your favourite malware?

I know you're joking, but your post reminds me of people who say things like "what's the point of helping people in Haiti, people would still be starving in Africa".

I would also like to point out that no coders time was wasted in making Glibc free. The license was just changed.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388400)

Most users don't care what os it is, they just want a nice big icon on the desktop that looks like a fox with arsonist tendencies.

Yours, Microsoft Evangelist

Re:Year of the Linux desktop! (2, Interesting)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388546)

I understand being snide about "linux desktop" Lock-in, Pre-installation, Ignorance etc etc...but what terrible user experience are you referring to...I'm confused you state it as though I should understand, but I don't. I can name large problems with pulseaudio(fixed),compiz(fixed..shiny new version),3D support(only Nvidia to get in on the act but nouveau), wireless(fixed), i8xx intel(hopefully fixed), Flash 64 Bit+GPU accelerated(Gnash does both and YouTube...and its importance has been diminished), but weighed against the billions spent on preserving the crappy experiences on windows, Most here are employed in that very industry. The bottom line is the worst thing...the most terrible awful thing I have to experience as a Linux Desktop User is the delay between clicking on Firefox and it appearing. I keep my rage inside by comforting myself with the fact I don't have to use Internet Explorer.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388704)

Ha, ha. Finally upgraded from Ubuntu 9.10 to 10.04. The upgrade broke pulseaudio, nvidia support & wireless. (Plus one not one your list: grub.)
Fortunately Firefox startup under Linux doesn't feel as slow as under Windows.

Re:Year of the Linux desktop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388804)

Evolution crashes every other time it connects to Exchange. And the keychain on 10.04 caused the window manager on all of my 3 machines to freeze on startup. With a snide remark that I have the source and can fix it if I want to when I report the problems.

Really, if you're going to rant, at least make it sensical. And put in carriage returns, or whitespace, or punctuation. Otherwise you sound like the unabomber.

landing plane (runway) ignites tires (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388116)

reminds one of i4 near orlando on a hot summer afternoon. heat + added friction =* the 'story' has been retooled to eliminate the heat/asphalt issue.

I wonder why did it take so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388242)

I wonder why did it take so long after the acquisition for the relicensing to finally be done.
--yuhong

Re:I wonder why did it take so long (3, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388330)

The article goes into some detail. To change a license you need the agreement of the authors. Over time the authors become hard to track down.

Glibc wasn't free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388348)

What a hopelessly misleading title! RPC part of the code's license is what is different and the Author of the linked article conflates it to the level of freeing Glibc it self, for what reason, I wonder! RPC has fallen out of use for quite a while, making this change not that significant.

That pisses me off (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388358)

Seriously, that's aggravating as hell. I just kind of assumed that GNU would have released all of their flagship software under the L?GPL and had no idea that they were distributing non-Free software. They were the one distributor I figured I'd never have to audit the licenses from. Are there any other hidden gems? Is there some shareware in Emacs? Maybe a bit of Shared Source in binutils?

People have laughed at the BSDs for replacing a lot of common software with locally-developed, BSD-licensed equivalents. That's starting to seem like a much saner alternative.

Re:That pisses me off (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388508)

and to boot, even though this was championed by Fedora, Fedora will probably stay on fsf's list of non-free software distros.

fsf non-free distro list [gnu.org]

Why no rewrite in 25 years? (3, Interesting)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388422)

I still don't understand why someone didn't just rewrite the code from scratch, using the original as a spec. The original code was released 25 years ago, and is not that huge an amount of code.

Taint (-1, Offtopic)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33388428)

glibc, portmap and NFS are no longer tainted.

Heh, he said "taint".

Why do they call it that, anyway? (he asks, delivering the straight line).

Re:Taint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33388572)

huhuhu.. it was a 'taint of greatness' huhuhuhuh..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...