• Support for register caches Dimitris Papastamos ported his code for rbtree and LZO caches from ASoC over to regmap. This makes it easy for drivers to cache the current values of the device registers, improving performance by eliminating reads when doing read/modify/write cycles and providing functions to restore the register cache when resuming from power down. An indexed cache type was also added but this will be removed in 3.3 as it offers no real advantage over rbtree.
• Support for a wider range of SPI register transfer formats contributed by Lars-Peter Clausen.
• Tracepoints supporting both register access logging and monitoring of the time spent on register I/O operations.
• Register map dumps via debugfs to help provide diagnostic information during development.

• [1] http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/fashion/child-beauty-pageant-under-for-awarding-autistic-girl-tahnee-myles-best-personailty/story-e6frfn7i-1226106345484
• [2] http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html
• [3] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/ugly-truth-about-beauty-pageants/story-e6frg6z6-1226106209926
• [4] http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12506
• [5] http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx

1. Child Abuse and Censorship In Australia we are currently in the middle of a...
2. Autism Awareness and the Free Software Community It s Autism Awareness Month April is Autism Awareness month, there...
3. Autism, Food, etc James Purser wrote Stop Using Autism to Push Your Own...

UWE Frenchay, Bristol: Venue of the RISE EGM

• it has recieved much public money and money from members on the understanding that it would be kept in common ownership;
• there are common ownership social enterprises that could really benefit from the legacy assets at this time of budget cuts, but if those assets go to a CIC, they are lost from common ownership;
• the EGM is the day after the global launch of the United Nations International Year of Co-operatives, which is about promoting mutualism around the world and the RISE co-operative should support this;
• many RISE members are mutuals, including the world s largest consumer co-operative and demutualisation would be embarassing to them;
• demutualisation should be discussed seriously, through a proper democratic process before the regular Annual General Meeting, not sprung from the board to members in a short meeting during the lunch break of another event;
• the proposal has not been published on RISE s website or email newsletter;
• appointing the former directors of a dissolved co-op as trustees without member oversight seems unlikely to secure the assets in the long term.

Once upon a time, there was Deb and Ian. That was about exactly 18 years ago. We don t talk about the 0.939000 format any more, but they eventually settled on:

	$ ar rc pkg_1.0_all.deb debian-binary control.tar.gz data.tar.gz
	$ hexdump -C pkg_1.0_all.deb   head
	00000000  21 3c 61 72 63 68 3e 0a  64 65 62 69 61 6e 2d 62   !<arch>.debian-b 
	00000010  69 6e 61 72 79 20 20 20  31 33 31 33 36 38 33 35   inary   13136835 
	00000020  32 39 20 20 31 30 30 36  20 20 32 30 30 20 20 20   29  1006  200    
	00000030  31 30 30 36 34 34 20 20  34 20 20 20 20 20 20 20   100644  4        
	00000040  20 20 60 0a 32 2e 30 0a  63 6f 6e 74 72 6f 6c 2e      .2.0.control. 
	00000050  74 61 72 2e 67 7a 20 20  31 33 31 33 36 38 33 35   tar.gz  13136835 
	00000060  32 39 20 20 31 30 30 36  20 20 32 30 30 20 20 20   29  1006  200    
	00000070  31 30 30 36 34 34 20 20  31 33 39 31 20 20 20 20   100644  1391     
	00000080  20 20 60 0a 1f 8b 08 00  00 00 00 00 00 03 ed 59      ............Y 
	00000090  eb 6f db 36 10 f7 d7 f0  af b8 3a 5e 9b 74 b1 f5   .o.6......:^.t.. 
 

By then, systems were a.out(5), and everything was good. (Of course, if you look at the mtimes, you ll notice I faked this. But it s really equivalent to the real thing.

But oh horror! GNU binutils, not always everyone s friend, switched from using BSD style Unix Archiver libraries in ar(1) to SYSV style libraries on elf(5) systems:

	$ ar rc on-elf debian-binary control.tar.gz data.tar.gz
	$ hexdump -C on-elf   head
	00000000  21 3c 61 72 63 68 3e 0a  64 65 62 69 61 6e 2d 62   !<arch>.debian-b 
	00000010  69 6e 61 72 79 2f 20 20  31 33 31 33 36 38 33 35   inary/  13136835 
	00000020  32 39 20 20 31 30 30 36  20 20 32 30 30 20 20 20   29  1006  200    
	00000030  31 30 30 36 34 34 20 20  34 20 20 20 20 20 20 20   100644  4        
	00000040  20 20 60 0a 32 2e 30 0a  63 6f 6e 74 72 6f 6c 2e      .2.0.control. 
	00000050  74 61 72 2e 67 7a 2f 20  31 33 31 33 36 38 33 35   tar.gz/ 13136835 
	00000060  32 39 20 20 31 30 30 36  20 20 32 30 30 20 20 20   29  1006  200    
	00000070  31 30 30 36 34 34 20 20  31 33 39 31 20 20 20 20   100644  1391     
	00000080  20 20 60 0a 1f 8b 08 00  00 00 00 00 00 03 ed 59      ............Y 
	00000090  eb 6f db 36 10 f7 d7 f0  af b8 3a 5e 9b 74 b1 f5   .o.6......:^.t.. 
 

Can you spot the difference?

Of course, ELF is what you want , so there is little choice. Unix Archiver libraries are system dependent, and no format has ever been normed, but DEB files use it as format so what is one to do?

	$ GNUTARGET=a.out-i386-linux ar rc with-aout \
	> debian-binary control.tar.gz data.tar.gz
	$ md5sum pkg_1.0_all.deb with-aout on-elf
	248f78d42f8ca8f2a3560f9800b2bf01  pkg_1.0_all.deb
	248f78d42f8ca8f2a3560f9800b2bf01  with-aout
	09eca70c9b11b6b55bbadcab5c3201fb  on-elf
 

OK, and what do I do on my Debian/m68k system?

ar(1) uses bfd, and GNU binutils can not only forcibly set the target emulation but also show them:

Wow. While binutils share no single supported working target, they can be built multiarch, or (on MirBSD) with --enable-targets=all --enable-64-bit-bfd. Doesn t help if you want to stay portable: GNUTARGET=srec is common on all Debian (sid) binutils versions (single or multiarch), but errors out on older binutils. The a.out-* targets are not common. Sure, you could hack around things, but this is tedious. If you follow things or know me a little, you might already have guessed that I wouldn t let that stand.

pax(1) to the rescue. On MirBSD, we use paxtar, which has cpio(1) and tar(1) front-ends and supports multiple formats (4 cpio and 2 tar variants) and has already been extended a lot and is lovingly called paxmirabilis (mirabilos peace in Latin) it has options to anonymise archives: set uid and gid to zero, set mtime to zero, (for ustar) only write the numeric uid and gid to the archive, (for cpio formats) serialise inodes and device information, write content of hardlinked files only once (breaks partial extraction but saves a lot of space, e.g. 2 MiB off the Grml initrd.gz). And, recently, the ability to append a trailing slash to pathnames of ustar members which are directories (GNU tar does it and I thought some Debian utilities check for it). So why not (the -M dist and fakeroot set the uid/gid to 0)

	$ find debian-binary control.tar.gz data.tar.gz   \
	> mircpio -oHar -Mdist >with-mircpio
	$ mirpax -w -M dist -f with-mirpax -x ar \
	> debian-binary control.tar.gz data.tar.gz
	$ mirtar -M dist -A -cf with-mirtar \
	> debian-binary control.tar.gz data.tar.gz
	$ GNUTARGET=a.out-i386-linux fakeroot ar rc with-aout-ar \
	> debian-binary control.tar.gz data.tar.gz
	$ md5sum with-*
	a466e2fd57cdee141fe585a43245548f  with-aout-ar
	a466e2fd57cdee141fe585a43245548f  with-mircpio
	a466e2fd57cdee141fe585a43245548f  with-mirpax
	a466e2fd57cdee141fe585a43245548f  with-mirtar
 

Voil . I got it, and even appending is possible. It supports the BSD format with special focus on DEB files, and deals with long filenames, but not symbol or filename tables (used by ranlib(1) or strange formats, respectively, but since we don t create *.a files to use with some native linker/binder/loader, we don t need that anyway).

On extraction (oh, and listing!) it deals with SYSV style filenames as well.

	$ mirtar tvf on-elf
	-rw-r--r--  1 tg       tg          4 Aug 18 16:05 debian-binary
	-rw-r--r--  1 tg       tg       1391 Aug 18 16:05 control.tar.gz
	-rw-r--r--  1 tg       tg      18135 Aug 18 16:05 data.tar.gz
	$ mirtar tvf with-aout
	-rw-r--r--  1 tg       tg          4 Aug 18 16:05 debian-binary
	-rw-r--r--  1 tg       tg       1391 Aug 18 16:05 control.tar.gz
	-rw-r--r--  1 tg       tg      18135 Aug 18 16:05 data.tar.gz
 

One of the real benefits is that you can use the front-ends interchangably for example, mirtar tzf foo.cpio.gz would work (which GNU tar can t do), and mircpio s ustar implementation, unlike GNU cpio s, is not horribly broken. Of course, there are some drawbacks: it s not GNU tar or GNU cpio, so there are absolutely zero --long-options. Some of their features are missing (but tar s -O is implemented now), so it s no replacement (but very well usable alongside it). The format called pax, committee-designed to replace ustar, isn t yet supported ironically, but that s on the TODO.

So, what do you think?

	tg@frozenfish:~/Debs/dists/sid/wtf/Pkgs/mircpio $ ll *.deb
	-rw-r--r-- 2 tg freewrt 78140 Aug 17 11:04 mircpio_20110817-0wtf2_amd64.deb
	-rw-r--r-- 3 tg freewrt 72262 Aug 17 11:00 mircpio_20110817-0wtf2_i386.deb
	-rw-r--r-- 1 tg freewrt 67446 Aug 17 18:21 mircpio_20110817-0wtf2_m68k.deb
 

Should I upload this to Debian proper? As for the licence: 3-clause UCB (and 2-clause BSD, which is a subset of it), so no problem. I m asking because the other package which I had been using for a long time and not uploaded, jupp, got uploaded recently (during DebConf) on user input (people wondered why it did not yet exist in Debian proper). I guess the old saying if it s not in Debian, it doesn t exist holds true in many parts of the OSS world. It s up to date wrt. standards btw, and lintian-clean save for two pedantic-class warnings (no upstream changelog file, no homepage link) which aren t fulfillable (could link this wlog entry as homepage). If you know Alioth you re familiar with the software formerly known as SourceForge, formerly known as GForge, currently known as FusionForge. My employer both uses it and contributes to it, we run an adapted (mostly themed, prototyping new functions that often end up in FusionForge itself, and backporting functions from FF to our production codebase ) version.

I ve backported the extratabs plugin to appease project managers and other non-technical people while we move our codebase to FF 5.1, and I did so on an installed version of the plugin rather than the source because the latter was tightly integrated with rather heavy packaging style changes.

	[ ]
	dh_builddeb
	# create fusionforge-plugin-extratabs binary package
	toplev=$$(pwd); cd plugins/fusionforge-plugin-extratabs; \
	p=$$(print -r -- $$(sed -n '/^Package: /s///p' C/control   head -1)); \
	v=$$(print -r -- $$(sed -n '/^Version: /s///p' C/control   head -1)); \
	a=$$(print -r -- $$(sed -n '/^Architecture: /s///p' C/control   head -1)); \
	d=$$ p _$$ v _$$ a .deb; \
	rm -f $$toplev/../$$d control.tar.gz data.tar.gz; \
	(cd control; find .   fgrep -v /.svn   sort   \
	    mircpio -oC512 -Hustar -M0x0B -Mgslash)   gzip -n9 >control.tar.gz; \
	(cd data; find .   fgrep -v /.svn   sort   \
	    mircpio -oC512 -Hustar -M0x0B -Mgslash)   gzip -n9 >data.tar.gz; \
	mirtar -M dist -Acf $$toplev/../$$d debian-binary cont*gz dat*gz; \
	rm -f control.tar.gz data.tar.gz; \
	cd $$toplev; dpkg-distaddfile $$d non-free/devel optional
 

The hardest part of extending debian/rules with that was to get the autobuild and dpkg-distaddfile call right. This works, even though I d call it a temporary kludge. (No need to tell me I should have used && I know. And I only shell out to mksh(1) because the inner part was already there from before, when I still used ar(1). This was slightly edited for the wlog.) In the meanwhile, apt-extracttemplates can deal with SYSV style filenames in DEB files on Debian sid, but not on Kubuntu hardy, which some people are using as Desktop OS still

But it's far more reasonable and sensible to discuss Perl scripts and software written in assembler embedded on a chip together, and the rights that they come with, than to try to talk about rights to modify sculpture and essays.

Sure, you could crowdsource sculpture, but I doubt it will have much practical application. (And certainly difficult over the Internet, but I digress...)

Take the GNU Manifesto, for example. If you could "fork" the manifesto, I could easily see variant versions modified to justify open source instead of free software.

The spark that fired off the GNU revolution was a legitimate problem because of non-free code, a user was unable to make use of hardware they (or their university) legitimately owned.

While Paley and others may want the same freedoms to go with cultural works, it is not a real problem in the same sense.

That doesn't mean that free culture is impossible. It simply means that different standards apply.

cryptlib is distributed under a dual license that allows free, open-source use under a GPL-compatible license and closed-source use under a standard commercial license.

 * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
 *    must display the following acknowledgement:
 *    "This product includes cryptographic software written by
 *     Eric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com)"
 *    The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library
 *    being used are not cryptographic related :-).

embedded code copies

In addition to embedded (and slightly-modified) copies of bn/ and crypt/ from OpenSSL, CryptLib contains an embedded copy of zlib. Debian has good reasons for wanting to avoid embedded code copies. I've got it CryptLib building against the system copy of zlib, but the bits copied from OpenSSL seem to be more heavily patched, which might complicate relying on the system version.

executable stack

lintian reports shlib-with-executable-stack for the library after it is built. I don't fully understand what this means or how to fix it, but i suspect it derives from the following set of object files that also have an executable stack:

0 dkg@pip:~/src/cryptlib/cryptlib$ for foo in $(find . -iname '*.o'); do
>  if ! readelf -S "$foo"   grep -q .note.GNU-stack ; then
>   echo "$foo"
>  fi
> done
./shared-obj/desenc.o
./shared-obj/rc5enc.o
./shared-obj/md5asm.o
./shared-obj/castenc.o
./shared-obj/bfenc.o
./shared-obj/rmdasm.o
./shared-obj/sha1asm.o
./shared-obj/bn_asm.o
./shared-obj/rc4enc.o
0 dkg@pip:~/src/cryptlib/cryptlib$ 

They probably all need to be fixed, unless there's a good reason for them to be that way (in which case they need to be documented).

non-PIC code

lintian reports shlib-with-non-pic-code on the library after it is built. I don't fully understand what this means, or how to resolve it cleanly, but i imagine this is just a question of sorting out the details.

git clone git://lair.fifthhorseman.net/~dkg/cryptlib

1. When publishing bibliographic data make an explicit and robust license statement.
2. Use a recognized waiver or license that is appropriate for data.
3. If you want your data to be effectively used and added to by others it should be open as defined by the Open Definition (http://opendefinition.org) in particular non-commercial and other restrictive clauses should not be used.
4. Where possible, explicitly place bibliographic data in the Public Domain via PDDL or CC0.

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:

• The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
• The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
• The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty- free basis.
• There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

En ben standard opfylder f lgende krav:

1. Veldokumenteret med den fuldst ndige specifikation offentligt tilg ngelig.
2. Frit implementerbar uden konomiske, politiske eller juridiske begr nsninger p implementation og anvendelse.
3. Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et bent forum (en s kaldt "standardiseringsorganisation") via en ben proces.

An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is

1. subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
2. without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
3. free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model;
4. managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
5. available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.

Creation and Management of an Open Standard

• Its development and management process must be collaborative and democratic:
  • Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria imposed by the organization under which it is developed and managed.
  • The processes must be documented and, through a known method, can be changed through input from all participants.
  • The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.
  • Development and management should strive for consensus, and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.
  • The standard specification must be open to extensive public review at least once in its life-cycle, with comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.

Use and Licensing of an Open Standard

• The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation, and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing implementations to the interface described in the standard without undue or restrictive constraints. Interfaces include APIs, protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.
• The standard must not contain any proprietary "hooks" that create a technical or economic barriers
• Faithful implementations of the standard must interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer program to communicate and exchange information with other computer programs and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are intended to function.
• It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.
• It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or fees; also known as "royalty free"), worldwide, non-exclusive and perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and sell products based on the standard. The only exceptions are terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
  • May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of licensees' patent claims essential to practice that standard (also known as a reciprocity clause)
  • May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims essential to practice that standard (also known as a "defensive suspension" clause)
  • The same licensing terms are available to every potential licensor
• The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms or restricted licensing terms

Lima, 8th of April, 2002
To: Se or JUAN ALBERTO GONZ LEZ
General Manager of Microsoft Per Dear Sir: First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter. While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions. With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service. It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:

• Free access to public information by the citizen.
• Permanence of public data.
• Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software. To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code. To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms. In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles. From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:

the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software

the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software

the law does not specify which concrete software to use

the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought

the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.

What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning. We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill. As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail: Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution." This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter. The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM). The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions. It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill. By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved. To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..." This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive ... practices." Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles. Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement. On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations. It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgment alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary). You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector." I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs. On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software. In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money. In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers. It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive. With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model. Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties." Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points. On security: National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency. What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors. It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product. In respect of the guarantee: As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software. On Intellectual Property: Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity). You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position." This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL). Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats. If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State. You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time." This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero. In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability. You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries." I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you. On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total. You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market." Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely. The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code. You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place." This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software. On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place. You continue by observing that: "10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment." It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point. What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments. You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry." This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad. You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools." In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software. You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?" We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector. The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public. In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes. I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable. Cordially,
DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NU EZ
Congressman of the Republic of Per .

  [](int i)   return i + 1;  ;

  [](int i)   return i + 1;  (0);

  auto inc = [](int i)   return i + 1;  ;
  std::cout << inc(0) << std::endl;

  auto mult = [](int x, double y) -> double   return x * y;  ;

  void f()  
    int x = 5;
    [](int w)   return w + x;  (0);
   

  void f()  
    int x = 5;
    [=](int w)   return w + x;  (0);
   

  void f()  
    int x = 5;
    [=](int w)   return w + ++x;  (0);
   

  void f()  
    int x = 5;
    [=](int w) mutable   return w + ++x;  (0);
   

  void f()  
    int x = 5;
    [&](int w)   return w + ++x;  (0);
   

struct A  
    int z;
    A() : z(0)  
    void f()  
      int x = 5;
      [this, &x](int w)   z = w + ++x;  (0);
      std::cout << "x: " << x << ", z: " << z << std::endl;
     
 ;

#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
 
  std::vector<int> v =   1, 2, 3  ;
  // Show then increment
  std::for_each(v.begin(), v.end(), [](int& e)   std::cout << e++ << std::endl;  );
  // Show content now
  std::for_each(v.begin(), v.end(), [](int e)   std::cout << e << std::endl;  );
 return 0;
 

1. This afternoon I tried to unlock my old Three mobile phones for the purpose of getting cheap net access as described in my previous post [1]. I wanted to use Dodo 3G Internet (via the Optus network) for my parents which would cost them $139 per year and I wanted to use my old Three phone tethered to their PC as the 3G modem (cheaper than buying a new 3G modem). I took in 3 Three phones to the Three store to get unlocked, I actually have 4 old Three phones (my wife and I are each on our third Three phone) but I seem to have misplaced one. It turned out that the two newer phones (LG U890) can t be unlocked as they are permanently locked to the Three network. The older LG U8110 can be unlocked, doing this took 30 minutes of the Three employee speaking to other Three employees on the phone and I will now have to wait 4 days to receive an SMS with the unlock code. So the Three anti-competitive behavior of making it unreasonably difficult to get a phone unlocked and of selling phones that (supposedly) can never be unlocked wasted them 30 minutes of store employee time when other potential customers were queuing up as well as 30 minutes of employee time in their call center. If the call-center employee was based in Australia then as the minimum wage is $14.31 per hour [2] that would have cost them at least $14.31 for 2*30min of work, as a rule of thumb it s generally regarded that the costs of employing people are twice the salary (including costs of maintaining office/shop space, paying managers, doing paperwork, etc). So it probably cost Three about $29 to unlock one of my phones and tell me that the others can t be unlocked, when I find phone 4 it will cost them another $29. As $29 is my typical monthly bill this has got to make an impact on the profitability of Three. If they were smart they would have sent me an SMS when I got a new phone telling me whether the old phone can be unlocked and if so giving me the code to do so. For phones that can be unlocked I doubt that would make anyone unlock their phone who wouldn t do so anyway, and for phones that can t be unlocked they could encourage the owner to give the phone to someone who wants a phone for pre-paid use (thus locking in a new customer). It probably won t be worth the effort of cracking an LG U890 phone to save my parents $10 per annum. As I couldn t get the LG U8110 to talk to my laptop I guess that forces my parents to eventually use Three for 3G net access. But they could have just matched the Dodo price and got the same result without having me spend half an hour in their store. Update: I just enquired about ending my Three contract for 3G net access ($15 per month for 1G of data) in favor of the yearly prepaid option of $149 per annum for 12G. The prepaid option would save me $31 per annum and allow me to use more than 1G in the busy months. But it seems that I subscribed to a two year contract for that one and I have 6 months to go. Over those 6 months they will make about $15 extra in revenue from me while annoying me in the process, this probably isn t a good deal. As my 3G modem is locked to the Three network even if I didn t have a contract I would still be unable to use a different provider.


2. My mother phoned Optus about her Internet connection and discovered that she had supposedly renewed her Optus cable Internet contract in September last year. Presumably someone from Optus phoned my parents and asked what seemed like a routine do you want to keep using the Internet? question but was really a do you agree to a 2 year contract with a $250 penalty clause for exiting early? . This isn t the first time that Oprus has scammed my parents (previously they charged them rental for a phone that they never supplied), I guess that they have a practice of pulling such stunts on pensioners. I guess I ll have to call the TIO, which will end up costing them more than the $250 penalty clause. The irony here is that as Dodo uses the Optus network I would have used Optus by choice for my parents, but now that they are being scum I will willingly pay the extra $10 per annum to use Three (which while annoying aren t actually hostile).


3. Finally while Google is admirably living up to their don t be evil motto in regards to China [3] their conduct regarding Google Talk leaves a lot to be desired. Two employees of a company I work for use Google Talk for their instant messaging, this has a Windows client but also allows general access via the Jabber protocol. So these two guys wanted to talk to me via Jabber but Google would just send me email saying X has invited you to sign up for Google Talk so you can talk to each other for free over your computers , I received 5 such messages from a colleague who was particularly persistent. It seems impossible for the Google Talk server to send a chat request to my personal Jabber server (which works well with a variety of other Jabber servers). So I have now started using my Gmail address to talk via the Jabber protocol to other Gmail users. This means that I have a TCP connection to the Google servers open most of the time and Google can boast of having one more active Gmail user. But it doesn t seem to really provide them a benefit. I am going to keep using my main email address as my primary Jabber ID and only use my Gmail address for talking to Google Talk users and only when paid to do so. But as a result of this I recommend that everyone avoid Google Talk as much as possible. Use open Jabber servers such as the ones run by Jabber.org.

• [1] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2010/01/15/cheap-net-access-australia/
• [2] http://www.fairpay.gov.au/
• http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html

A while ago, I was talking to Jim Gettys at the IETF meeting in Orlando, and the subject of software licensing issues came up, and he had a very interesting perspective to share about the X Consortium License, and what he viewed as bugs in the GPL. His basic observation was this: Many companies made various improvements to the X code, which they would keep as proprietary and give them a temporary edge in the marketplace. However, since the X code base was continually evolving, over time it became less attractive to maintain these code forks, since it would mean that they would have to be continually merging their enhancements into the evolving code base. Also, in general, the advantage in having the proprietary new feature or speed enhancement typically degraded over time. After all, most companies are quite happy if it takes 18-24 months for their competitor to match a feature in their release. So sometime later, the companies would very often donate their previously proprietary enhancement to the X consortium, which would then fold it into the public release of X. Jim Gettys complaint about the GPL was that by removing this ability for companies to recoup the investment needed to make major developmental improvements to Open Source code bases, companies might not have the incentive do this type of infrastructural improvements to GPL ed projects. Upon reflection, I think this is a very valid model. When Open Vision distributed the Kerberos Administration daemon to MIT, they wanted an 18 month sunset clause in the license which would prevent commercial competitors from turning around and bidding their work against them. My contract with Powerquest for doing the ext2 partition resizer had a similar clause which kept the resizing code proprietary until a suitable timeout period had occurred, at which point it would be released under the GPL. (Note that by releasing under the GPL, it prevents any of Partition Magic s commercial competitors from including it in their proprietary products!)

• bug #546585 - cssed - invalid const char* conversion (Ubuntu patch)
• bug #434925 - suikyo - prefer recent emacs in suikyo-elisp
• bug #545515 - mgltools-gle - move to non free due to NC clause (copyright patch by Scott Kitterman)
• bug #548555 - lastfmsubmitd - fix deps in init.d LSB headers (patch by Peter Reinholdtsen)
• bug #554905 - hibernate - fix deps in init.d LSB headers (patch by martin f krafft)
• bug #554494 - pfstools - invalid const char* conversion (Ubuntu patch)
• bug #551718 - eboard - invalid const char* conversion (Ubuntu patch)

• last week I've been incredibly busy at work to finish up some pre-xmas-holiday duties: hence today I've took half a day of BSP at home to "catch up"
• the above finally convinced me to drop the dates from my reports, they are quite pointless: my personal goal is simply one RC bug per day on average, the actual day of the week is irrelevant
• Lucas strikes back: the huge peek up in the RC bug graph is the result of his last rebuilt, several (most?) FTBFS new bugs are due to the recent switch to gcc 4.4 (err, of course thanks Lucas for his rebuilds, they are a significant part of our QA efforts)
• ... the good news is that Ubuntu has apparently switched to gcc 4.4 already and most gcc-4.4-related issues come with a patch from them. In particular, several of the bugs fixed above thank Fabrice Coutadeur from Ubuntu for his patches
• my Luk's bug feed is empty again ..., pretty please?

The software shall be used for good, not evil

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Also about once a year, I get a letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company I don't want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials IBM
[laughter]
saying that they want to use something I wrote. Because I put this on everything I write, now. They want to use something that I wrote in something that they wrote, and they were pretty sure they weren't going to use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So could I give them a special license for that? Of course. So I wrote back this happened literally two weeks ago "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil."

SELECT b.id FROM bugs_rt_affects_stable bas
   LEFT JOIN bugs b ON bas.id=b.id
   WHERE b.severity IN ('serious', 'critical', 'grave')
   AND b.id NOT IN (select bau.id from bugs_rt_affects_unstable bau)
   ORDER BY b.id;

• Be considerate
• Be respectful [...] It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
• The important goal is not to avoid disagreements or differing views but to resolve them constructively. You should turn to the community and to the community process to seek advice and to resolve disagreements.
• When you are unsure, ask for help. Nobody knows everything, and nobody is expected to be perfect in the Ubuntu community