Find non-free code at
GNU-Darwin, and get a
reward from RMS. In preparation for this initiative, the team
has greatly improved the software freedom status and GPL compliance of the newest free OS including the
ports system, packages,
on-line,
and hard media offerings. It appears that the FSF wants GNU-Darwin to stay free. As always, many thanks to them, especially RMS, D. E. Evans, Eben Moglen, etc.
It feels great to do the right thing, and that GNU-Darwin is finally inside the free software circle. There is also a longer article about this at Advogato.
Bounty Hunters Search for Proprietary Code
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Well, that’s certainly inventive. Does anyone know if GNU-Darwin is ready for the prime time?
For as long as this notice remains on our site, The Free Software Foundation has kindly offered a reward of exactly $3.14159, check to be signed by RMS, an idea from Donald Knuth
Donald Knuth’s software Metafont and Tex have a version which tend to $ pi $ and $ e $ each time he has to fix a bug (ie. every 5 years)
Since he owns these numbers, RMS should take another one.
My favorite is the golden number,
$ phi = frac{sqrt 5+1}{2} leq 1.61803 $
Does this mean that FSF has given up on the HURD as their OS of choice?
PS: This is not a flame, I was just curious because the last time I looked at Darwin, it had very little support for I386.
Does this mean that FSF has given up on the HURD as their OS of choice?
There’s still active HURD development, and one can install Debian with HURD as its kernel (and still be able to use X and all). HURD is still termed the GNU kernel. So, I think that the HURD is here to stay.
HURD has an interesting architecture. I’ve never done low-level programming, but I’m thinking about joining the HURD team with whatever help I can offer. Might be a great way to learn about how kernels work and at the same time make progress on a genuine GNU kernel that would ideally supersede the very non-GNU Linux kernel.
I asked the same question and Hurd is still under active development, as a member of the GNU Darwin team, I would like to see Darwin offered as an alternative for the GNU System but Hurd and Debian still seem to be RMS’s baby.
<sigh of relief />
At long last, GNU/Darwin is finally, Finally, Free Software. But don’t think we can just rest easy now. There’s still a lot of work to be done to make sure everyone else believes in the One True Way, the way of Free Software. One day we will walk in a world that is free of immoral proprietary software, but we have taken great steps to remedy the situation. Let’s all bow our heads in honor of Richard M. Stallman, who hath led us on this great path.
“but Hurd and Debian still seem to be RMS’s baby.”
I don’t know where you got this idea from. Debian doesn’t use the FSF’s definition of Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) but rather its own (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). Sure, there’s a great deal of common ground, and a fair amount of overlap in terms of personnel as well (e.g. Thomas Bushnell, primary architect for the HURD, is a regular on Debian-legal) but that’s not to say there aren’t disagreements over some issues.
For instance, the FSF has recently stopped linking to Debian from its web site because, during the install, the user is asked whether or not he wants to install packages from the Non-Free package tree (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg01…). Additionally, there’s a schism between the two organisations over the GNU Free Documentation License, which Debian considers Non-Free (http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml). So, whilst the two organizations are on the whole very close (hey, they both promote Free Software) and I hope will remain so in the future, Debian is hardly RMS’s baby.
Lol! Highly entertaining, but of course you’re (perhaps deliberately) missing the fact that the GNU/Darwin project *wants* to be Free Software under the FSF’s definition. This is an entirely voluntary on the part of the developers, not some crusade initiated at RMS’s behest. Obviously he was their inspiration, but it’s ridiculous to say that he was cracking the whip to have them fall in line with his views.
“Does this mean that FSF has given up on the HURD as their OS of choice?
PS: This is not a flame, I was just curious because the last time I looked at Darwin, it had very little support for I386.”
PPS: This is also not a flame, but the last time I looked at the Hurd, *it* had very little support for i386