The Facts

SoftBound is a BSD-licensed “value-added” compiler. Give it some source code and it can produce “hardened” binaries that are more secure because they are immune to buffer overflows. It makes no changes to the source code.

The Hypothetical

A company, using a proprietary and closed “value-added” compiler compiles GPL software and sells the binaries. Source code available. Binaries locked up tight.

The Question 

Is this a problem? By “problem” I mean is this forbidden under the GPL (v2 or v3), and if it is or isn’t should it or should it not be?

Anyway, Robyn has a pun-filled blog post about the F13 - code named “Goddard” – release slogan “Rock it!“. 

…

Yeah, I think that’s brilliant – so what! I like puns! I like Spider Robinson! STOP LOOKING AT ME!

So, in honor of the upcoming F13 release let me share with you one of my favorites:

As I’m sure you know, Mahatma Gandi was a very spiritual man with strong beliefs. And those beliefs lent themselves to some eccentric behavior: he would walk barefoot everywhere he went, which made his feet very rough; he ate a strange diet which not only made him a bit frail, but also had the unfortunate side effect of quite bad breath. Of course, you know what that made him….

A super-calloused fragile mystic vexed by halitosis.

I don’t know about “free software”. Even after more than a decade it’s still an alien term for me. I know it is “opensource” for as far as I’m concerned. And that’s all I care about.
- Philip Van Hoof, GNOME Foundation Member

Usually I turn to HBO or Showtime to provide me with my drama fix, but the GNOME Foundation Mailing List is doing a pretty durn good job of spicing it up these last few weeks. It’s so good I might have to break it up over a few entries.

New Thing: Same as the Old Thing

This latest kerfluffle (not to be confused with earlier kerfluffles [1] [2]) started up over concerns for a strategic roadmap on GNOME, the thread got all heated up by names that will be familiar to anyone following such issues (“trollers gonna troll” is how the kids say it in their rap music) , a re-boot was attempted, and now people are  unsubscribing from the mailing list[1][2].

Jump on in, the water’s fine

Like I said, there’s a ton of stuff to comment on, but here’s one to start on:

[Richard Stallman] Implementing a free platform for C# is a good thing to do.  If you would like to promote the use of C# itself, how about explaining to Novell and Microsoft that they need to fully implement said protection in an ironclad way for all the usual C# libraries.

[Miguel de Icaza] I spend a considerable amount of time doing this.   It has taken time, and there would be no Community Promise, and there would be no Silverlight agreement (the one that has no special Novell provisions) without this work.

[Ace Ventura]>Re-he-he-he-eally??
What about the fact that the Covenant defines a “Conforming Host” as either a web browser or a launcher implemented by Novell?

Wat about the fact that the Covenant defines “Moonlight 3” as only those portions developed by or on behalf of Novell?

What about the fact that the Covenant specifically defines the terms “Novell-Provided Copies” and “Novell Distribution“?

What about the fact that the Covenant restricts “by license and technical means” Media Packs to work only with Novell-Provided Copies of Moonlight?

What about the fact that the Covenant specifies test suites that Microsoft will provide to Novell for testing the functionality of Novell’s Moonlight candidates?

A simple request

Now, having read the text of the Covenant, anyone care to tell me exactly how there are no special Novell provisions in the Silverlight agreement?

Don’t get mad and call me a zealot or make fun of how rms uses the internet or engage in whatever distractionary technique Team Apologista has queued up when someone raises uncomfortable questions.

And don’t just attack one of those questions, either. You need to show that not a single one is a “special Novell provision”.

Extra irony

You may appreciate knowing that Mr. de Icaza makes this assertion – that there are no special Novell provisions (when there clearly are) – while calling a FSF article on mono “a package of half-truths” and accusing rms of spreading “half truths”.

I suppose even a package of half-truths is a step up from a package of no-truths.

This is just something I think is funny.

"Best of Breed"?