bboard

Posted by Screwtape
Sure, but I think 2016 is when people really started to think there might be a systemic problem and not just some unfortunate coincidences.

Anyway, this isn't the politics thread!

Today Firefox 66 was released, which means Firefox Nightly got bumped to version 68. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I actually found some regressions and filed bugs for them:

- browser.display.use_document_fonts=0 is not respected
- Tree Style Tab requires an extra click to do anything

Much to my (pleasant) surprise, both bugs got triaged, confirmed, and somebody found the exact commit that caused each regression within a couple of hours of my reporting them.

I'm still a bit annoyed that the regressions happened, but I'm pleased to get a response so quickly, and now I'm keen to see how long it takes the regressions to be fixed.

Posted by Screwtape

They have no obligation to be nice, but they also have no obligation to be nasty. I guess they have to say *something* because of trademark law, but I don't think there's an explicit time-limit, and even if there is, I'm sure it's longer than two days it took that bug to go from "hello" to "repository locked".

I assume the developers' long-term goals for Pale Moon include gathering enough of a community around it that the project becomes self-sustaining, and (in this instance at least) their actions are undermining their own goals. It's not about obligation, it's about strategy.

I have a theory that because software developers work so intimately with computers, we fall out of practice at identifying and processing emotions in ourselves and others (or maybe the kind of people who have problems with that are naturally attracted to software development). And so, like people who are hard-of-hearing yelling at each other indoors, we get super-emotional because we don't remember what volume-level regular people use, and we wish regular people would speak up and quit mumbling so we can observe their emotional state without having to guess wildly. And like people who are hard-of-hearing, even though we're behaving rationally and haven't done anything wrong, it's more pragmatic to learn to control our volume level and learn to lip-read than it is to try and make the rest of the world conform to our expectations.

I believe it's also blocked by a lot of ISPs, or run by the CIA, or visiting it flags your account for increased scrutiny, or something. I'm pretty sure all the good content is now mostly (only?) available on smaller trackers, or even private trackers, and there's no tracker as central and complete as TPB was back in the day. Sure, a lot of fresh content is still available *somewhere*, but it was generally available before TPB arrived, too. TPB made it *widely accessible*, and now with the decline of TPB content is less widely accessible again.

It used to be that members and representatives of the copyright industry from all over the world were fighting TPB tooth-and-nail, but now they are not. The copyright industry has not evaporated, it has not given up control of copyrighted works, and even if it's smaller than it was, it has not gone away. Therefore, I conclude that TPB is no longer a threat to the copyright industry.

I'm typing this right now on a computer with a Free operating system, Free drivers and mostly Free firmware, and I didn't have to ask anyone's permission, or pay $99 a year for a developer kit.

It used to be that members and representatives of the proprietary software industry from all over the world were fighting against GNU and Linux tooth-and-nail, but now they are not. Many of those companies have gone bankrupt, or gotten acquired, or reorganised their business models into different shapes. Heck, today I saw a product announced by Microsoft, that is not only open-source, but "requires Python 3 and only supports Linux and macOS systems at the moment". The very idea would have been *madness* a couple of decades ago. Therefore, I conclude that even if the FSF hasn't achieved their ultimate goals, they have certainly had a tremendous impact on the entire computer industry.

"Embrace, extend, and extinguish",[1] also known as "embrace, extend, and exterminate",[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to strongly disadvantage its competitors.

Posted by sureanem

What did the FSF have to do with this? As far as I can see, all they've done is to take credit for the actions of others. Linux, X11, Firefox, apt, none of these are GNU projects.

As far as I can tell, the GNU project has made three substantial contributions to free software:
* A C library
* A compiler
* A set of coreutils

I'm not entirely sure. It's true that a hostile environment drives off some people, but I'm not certain it's completely unrelated to skill level. Linus' famous rants didn't seem to hurt the project, for instance.

The only reason they still are relevant is due to inertia, like how the Linux kernel is too tightly bound to gcc now to ever compile under Clang, even though they would want to.

Posted by jimbo1qaz
after obtaining the agbcc binary, they could tell the company who developed it to release the source code: https://github.com/pret/agbcc

Posted by ninpcman.pdf

END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE “LICENSEE” AND SN SYSTEMS LTD “LICENSOR”

LICENSE: SN Systems Ltd (SN Systems) hereby grant the Licensee a non-transferable, non-exclusive right to use the
Licensor’s software product Tools on any single computer, provided that the Software is in use on only one computer at a
time in return for the license fee.

USE OF THE SYSTEM: You may use the Software and associated User Documentation on any single computer fitted
with Cartridge Hardware. You may also copy the Software for archival purposes, provided that any copy contains all the
proprietary notices for the original Software.

You may not:
Permit other individuals to use the Software except under the terms listed above;
Modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such
restriction) or create derivative works based on the Software;
Copy the Software (except for backup purposes);
Rent, lease, transfer or otherwise transfer rights to the Software;
Remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Software

TITLE: Title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the software shall remain in SN Systems Ltd.

COPYRIGHT: The Software is owned by the Licensor. The Licensee may not copy the manual (s) or any other written
materials accompanying the Software.

$ grep -r gcc . | grep -v html        
Binary file ./bin/cppn64.exe matches
Binary file ./bin/cc1pln64.exe matches
Binary file ./bin/cc1n64.exe matches
Binary file ./lib/libsn.lib matches
$ strings bin/cppn64.exe | grep gcc -i
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/Nintendo64/2.7.2/../../../../include/g++
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/Nintendo64/2.7.2/../../../../include
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/Nintendo64/2.7.2/../../../../Nintendo64/include
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/Nintendo64/2.7.2/include
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/Nintendo64/2.7.2/include
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/Nintendo64/2.7.2/include
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/Nintendo64/2.7.2/include
header.gcc
Internal gcc abort.
$ strings bin/cc1pln64.exe | grep gcc -i 
`long long long' is too long for GCC
GCC_ASM_KEYWORD
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS
internal gcc abort
`-%s' not supported by this configuration of GCC
`-%s' not supported by this configuration of GCC
gccdump
bc_gcc2_compiled.:
gcc2_compiled.:
__gcc_bcmp
.gcc_except_table
internal gcc error: .set noat left on in epilogue
internal gcc error: .set nomacro left on in epilogue
internal gcc error: .set noreorder left on in epilogue
internal gcc error: .set volatile left on in epilogue
$ strings bin/cc1n64.exe | grep gcc -i 
GCC does not yet support XREF
GCC does not yet support XREF
`long long long' is too long for GCC
internal gcc abort
`-%s' not supported by this configuration of GCC
`-%s' not supported by this configuration of GCC
gccdump
bc_gcc2_compiled.:
gcc2_compiled.:
__gcc_bcmp
.gcc_except_table
internal gcc error: .set noat left on in epilogue
internal gcc error: .set nomacro left on in epilogue
internal gcc error: .set noreorder left on in epilogue
internal gcc error: .set volatile left on in epilogue
$ strings lib/libsn.lib | grep gcc -i 
(C:\source\LibSN\Nintendo\LIBSN\LIBGCC2.C
[Editor's note: 38 repeats of this omitted]
(C:\source\LibSN\Nintendo\LIBSN\LIBGCC2.C
__gcc_bcmp
__gcc_bcmp.obj
__gcc_bcmp

Posted by tomman
Now that you guys mention GCC and game development, it turns out that Sega did used GCC as their reference compiler for the 32X (at least for the SH-2 part). That was the compiler they shipped on their SDKs, and if you take a look at some 32X binaries (at least on the CD games), you will find GCC symbols on those.

Did they ever released the sources for whatever GCC version were they using back in 1994?

If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? (#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic)

No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA)

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org.

If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA)

No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis.

Posted by sureanem

I'm no expert, but I think it's perfectly legal to make your custom copy of GCC for internal use without releasing it.

Posted by Screwtape
the GNU project gives out as many copies of Emacs as they can.

Posted by BearOso
No, but if you’re the only distributor of a binary, the onus is on you. Someone who only possesses and uses the binary and does not give it away (free or paid) is not obligated to provide source either. So even though Nintendo used a modified version of GCC, it stayed put. If someone dug up an old binary, Nintendo doesn’t have to give them source because there was no intent on their part to give out the binary. If that person gives it out intentionally, they need to provide the source. The GPL works really well in protecting the innocent party in this case.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.