The Rust Flash Player emulator is a thing - and nobody told me
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
"Ruffle is an Adobe Flash Player emulator written in the Rust programming language."
https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/blob/master/README.md
Someone had to do it, I suppose. It looks like some long dead tower defense flash games have been rekindled through Ruffle. I sense a vergence in world productivity.
Of course, these games themselves are absolutely NOT free software ("you have no right" licence), but maybe someone will decide to write a fully free software tower defense game for Ruffle. In Rust. "Freedo and the Blobs Tower Defense" or "The Adventures of Trisquelo in Gnufoundland Tower Defense".
We have discovered that the long-term effects of gaming addiction had been prophesied by the Phrygians, as attested by this archeological artifact:
https://github.com/CBugDCoder/tower_defense
is a tower defense mod for Minetest, I think it uses the main Minetest game.
It also avoids the non-floss Rust trademark.
https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:rust_trademark
Maybe seeing there are already mods and games in Trisquel's repository the partly non-floss repository of Minetest can be switched to a Trisquel Minetest repository.
That way the over 118 likely floss games and over 1414 likely floss mods of Minetest's repository will not "flood" the main Trisquel repository and players will not even need to think that non-floss will have slipped into Trisquel's repository.
There are at least 32 Minetest packages/games/mods in Trisquel's repository. So a https://content.trisquel.info or https://minetest.trisquel.info or something could be made to sort it's Minetest mods and provides a way to switch the default Minetest non-floss repository to a floss one, unless it can already be done by switching it to Trisquel's repository, somehow.
Will you administrate that repository? That is the problem with all third-party repositories (pip, npm, Flatpak, etc.): administrating a separate free-software-only repository is a solution... but that requires somebody willing to administrate it in the long run and deeming every package either free or nonfree. See https://wiki.parabola.nu/TPPM_Liberation_Project
In my humble opinion, Minetest is the least such problem, as I explained in reply to one of your previous posts: https://trisquel.info/forum/missing-program-and-other-problems#comment-174898
Thank you for the information in https://wiki.parabola.nu/TPPM_Liberation_Project
I see
[9]: IMHO, "disable default URL, make user-configurable" has the best chance of being generally acceptable to all (it is our current plan for 'octopi' and 'docker')
was selected by parabola.nu , and likely how hyperbola.info and guix.gnu.org also did it.
Just by removing the URL to the non-floss repository, but letting anyone set it back to any repository, to download some games, mods, and texture packs with the minetest client.
Otherwise a separate repository may need to be setup and maintained at sites like trisquel.info , savannah.nongnu.org , savannah.gnu.org or some other site.
I think anyone could also use a browser to download the any software that minetest uses, even things not in minetest's repository, seeing it can be placed locally in a games or mods folder, so having no default URL could make the minetest client still follow the
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
without setting up any extra repository. Or people could also use the minetest mods and games that are already in Trisquel, or use any way to install the games, mods, and texture packs.
I repeat my my conclusion in https://trisquel.info/forum/missing-program-and-other-problems#comment-174898 :
The Minetest user is only presented free software by default. Minetest does not steer its users towards installing nonfree software. No accident would lead to the installation of that software either. Indeed, a Minetest user must actively seek a setting and explicitly ask to be shown proprietary software for that to happen. Who are we to prevent her from doing so? Sure, we, the free software movement, consider she is harming herself, if she ends up running nonfree software. Nevertheless, in this case, she clearly declared her acceptance of nonfree content. Modifying the minetest package to prevent her from being shown the nonfree content is, in this case, working against her freedom.
The information on the Hyperbola page is outdated.
Does that mean there is no issue with the Rust trademark anymore?
Not necessarily. The Rust Foundation now holds the trademark - not Mozilla - And, if you follow the Hyperbola link to the list of Mozilla trademarks, Rust and Cargo are no longer there. And, the Rust trademark policy no longer refers to Mozilla at all. So all of Hyperbola's references of how the the Rust trademark policy merely "supplements" the Mozilla one (thereby bringing in all of its known problems) are rendered moot. That doesn't mean there can't problems with it in other ways but the conclusion arrived at in the page is based on old information that no longer holds. A new evaluation and conclusion is needed.
So you are basically saying that the problem isn't mozilla anymore, its the rust foundation itself?
I suppose that would be accurate.
(Consolidating multiple message together):
"So you are basically saying that the problem isn't mozilla anymore, its the rust foundation itself?
I suppose that would be accurate.
But it still raises the question, why hasn't the rust foundation fixed this issue?
Last I checked they double down.
Hope I can be proven wrong on this."
If a problem does in fact exist. The Parabola folk just haven't updated their website to talk of the new trademark policy; they're still talking about the old one. Problems did exist previously, when Rust was subject to the Mozilla trademark policy. I'm *not* saying that a problem does exist currently with the new trademark policy from the Rust Foundation now that Mozilla is out of the picture, and we should not automatically read in that a problem does exist but these questions seems to be assuming that there are unfixed problems, which may not be the case. All I'm saying (the only thing I'm saying) is that a new evaluation and conclusion is needed about the new policy. We should not automatically assume that the new trademark policy is bad just because the old one was. The new one may in fact be problematic. Or it could be better. If it is problematic, it may not be problematic in the same ways that the old one was that the Parabola people are talking about. Without that analysis we cannot know.
Free software is based in morality of what's right and wrong (not what's legal) and so that's the first step to take in judging something: Is it right, morally? We know the Mozilla trademark policy wasn't because it applied restrictions on Freedom #2. But what about the new one? That's the unanswered question. It's time to spend time reading it and thinking.
The Hyperbola wiki page has now been updated:
"Last modified: 2024/01/01".
They seem to have further grievances against Rust, based on which they stand by their initial decision to completely exclude it.
The page seems to be the same since the last time I saw it.
Although, I definitely don't remember the last time I saw it either.
It may very well have been some minor changes anyhow.
Even if you guys don't agree with Hyperbola, they are doing something radically impressive with making a hard fork of OpenBSD, other people could potentially fork their new creation to do what they want with. it would be nice to see more help go there way. If Trisquel can have the help they get, I don't see why the love can't be shared elsewhere.
Well not that it has to be done, but just an opinion from me.
In any case, I appreciate Jxself for giving me an idea on the whole mozilla to rust foundation changes situation.
Thanks. It does seem to reflect a misunderstanding. One of the things mentioned in the page is that changing it (and still calling it Rust) requires approval. But: changing it and not calling it Rust would not so that by itself is not a freedom problem, just as rebranding Firefox to Abrowser completely sidesteps any requirements that are applied through trademark. The same thing can be done in this case, thereby allowing any changes desired to be made.
To quote: "it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more." --https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Changing the name of the compiler or package manager should not create any compatibility problems because, for example, a symlink could be created so that programs invoking things like rustcc will still function as expected. Trademark, after all, only goes so far and can't really be used to stop attempts at compatibility and interoperability.
There is still an unsettled question in my mind of how easy it is to rebrand Rust and Cargo. That's important since the Free Software Definition makes the requirement to rename be conditionally okay on "as long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes". There is an attempt at doing exactly that with CrabLang and so I expect that, in time, that matter will be more fully researched and sorted out so I see no need to jump to any conclusions just yet. :)
The matter of nonfree programs in Cargo is legit and needs addressing, in the same way that it does for many other language-specific package managers.
> CrabLang
Indeed CrabLang currently looks like an exact copy of Rust, but called CrabLang instead of Rust and without any trademark restrictions. So, as things stand, it is probably easier to modify CrabLang than it is to modify Rust, since one does not even need to rename it, nor to get any form of approval.
> how easy it is to rebrand Rust and Cargo
It looks like all that was needed was a fork that got rid of the trademark policy. Since there is now a fully free version of Rust called CrabLang, in fact a full clone with a different name, there may be no reason to keep using Rust instead of CrabLang, which does not even need to be rebranded.
Maybe Hyperbola would consider including CrabLang, but they do not mention it on their wiki page. They may not have been made aware of its existence yet.
UPDATE: someone told them: "Yes, we also know about the project CrabLang. But that exactly underlines again our points: If it would have been that easy as some people say, this project would have already made a stable release and informed about that."
" Last modified: 2024/01/03"
So no, they do not seem to be considering including CrabLang. The project seems to have stalled by the end of July anyway:
https://github.com/crablang/crab/graphs/contributors
That's a shame, a debloated community version of rust might actually make rust useful.
Pity its not so simple... :(
Hmm, fair enough, btw, I see prospero said that 2024 Hyperbola has new grievances with rust.
I think they want two things, the first being:
rust being easily rebrandable like firefox, minimal effort another words.
Second, which could only follow after that, someone to debloat it to where it isn't a chasm of problems.
Btw, as a side note, I don't really understand why my posts on this thread are getting tbumbed down without any understanding of what I am asking.
The first requirement should be more than reasonable for all programming languages.
The second, I will admit might be a tough sell for other people to feel is needed. I will respectfully disagree on that part, but also understand regardless.
The idea of thumbing down should be reserved for when something goes against the TOS. Otherwise, its a way to push people around with their disapproval. But that's another issue entirely I will admit.
I believe the problem of non-free crates in the default Cargo registry would remain anyway, although the Parabola table says that there is a patch in progress for Cargo.
The closest thing I could find is this crate: https://docs.rs/crate/cargo-deny/0.5.1
Other results about crates of patchouli sticks found in the hold of a rusty cargo ship are probably off-topic here.
>"Other results about crates of patchouli sticks found in the hold of a rusty cargo ship are probably off-topic here."
That never stopped you before. Go on, tell us all about your warehouse full of hippie incense.
We have long established that patchouli sticks and self-important trolls belong to the same chapter of the Holy Code:
"5. Try not to flame".
They should be left to smolder instead.
Sources to prove otherwise? I am curious
"Sources to prove otherwise?"
Look at the trademark policy itself, not someone's (i.e., Parabola's) description of it.
I protest, Parabola is innocent.
I read what you wrote above, it sounded like you were saying mozilla isn't at fault anymore. Which, could make sense.
But it still raises the question, why hasn't the rust foundation fixed this issue?
Last I checked they double down.
Hope I can be proven wrong on this.
When I responded to this more, I merely meant, that I wanted to see what the trademark currently says. I wanted a link to the current ideal. But meh, no worries.
Where I found it
https://labs.parabola.nu/boards/19/topics/476?r=1412#message-1412
The link, I think
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/
Another link
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2022-08/msg00011.html
[quote]
Trademark policy #
The Rust and Cargo names and brands make it possible to say what is officially part of the Rust community, and what isn’t. So we’re careful about where we allow them to appear. But at the same time, we want to allow for as much creative use of these brands as we can. The policy laid out here explains how we strike a balance. If you want to use these names or brands, especially in a commercial way, please read this page or feel free to reach out and ask us about it!
TL;DR: Most non-commercial uses of the Rust/Cargo names and logos are allowed and do not require permission; most commercial uses require permission. In either case, the most important rule is that uses of the trademarks cannot appear official or imply any endorsement by the Rust project.
If you have any doubts about whether your intended use of a Rust Trademark requires permission, please contact us.
This document was derived in part from the Python Software Foundation Trademark Usage Policy.
[/quote]
Sorry I do not remember how to post quotes.
Thank you for putting this out there. Seems its the non-commercial aspect that makes it non-libre.
Not a huge deal if so for me, but I would have thought it would be for other people here.
Free Culture requires it to be shareable whether commercial or non-commercial with all four freedoms.
I figured this was the case. Seems Hyperbola still is right if nothing else for now.
It is bloated, but that is a separate issue unrelated to freedom.
Also, a bunch of packages in GNU/Linux land are bloated so there's that.
Anywho, thanks again, Cody.
Seems its the non-commercial aspect that makes it non-libre.
No. The previously-raised concerns were dealing with restrictions on the distribution of unmodified copies (no such issue remains) and with the difficulty to rebrand, when necessary (like jxself, I still wonder if that difficulty is real).
Yes, but needing to be able to modify it as you see fit is one of the four freedoms Stallman says are needed right? If one freedom is lacking, that means its non-free, doesn't it?
I actually take back what I said above too, programming languages should not have any restrictions besides the trademarks like the python language has.
Another words, modified or unmodified being able to distribute without permission is one of the four freedoms.
Yes. But my understand is identical to jxself's (who will correct me, if my three-point summary is incorrect):
- no issue with Rust's license: it grants all four freedom;
- no issue with Rust's new trademark policy: it is now derived from Python's (and, unlike Mozilla's, does not require a permission or a change of name/logo to distribute without modification);
- one single doubt remains: is it overly burdensome for a developer to change Rust's name and logo?
I also wonder if other free software projects under trademarks (for instance Python) have gone through such suspicions regarding the difficulty to change the name/logo. If not, why the suspicions on Rust?
This is because Rust was named after devastating parasitic fungal plant pathogens, while Python is named after silly comedy material.
"A community fork of a language named after a plant fungus."
https://crablang.org
Some should seriously consider informing themselves more accurately before randomly downvoting educational material:
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/27jvdt/internet_archaeology_the_definitive_endall_source
That seems a good point about Rust getting more suspicion than Python. As I compare https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
Changing the name on Python could still be a thing that someone needs to do, depending n the changes being done, like if the changes should trigger any of the "We do not want these trademarks to be used" area comes up. Like modifying the Python interpreter in such a way that it's not really the Python language anymore (as an example, if the modified interpreter is no longer compatible to run existing Python code or if the language that the modified interpreter can run can't be run by the standard Python interpreter, then I might argue that it's no longer the same language, thus triggering the "We do not want these trademarks to be used to refer to any other programming language.")
The Rust Foundation's trademark policy seems more stringent in this area than Python's, though. But I'm not aware of anyone having looked into how easy it would be to rebrand the Python software.
When the trademark no longer represents a certain level of quality to the community, or no longer indicates that we are the source of the products that bear the trademark, the trademark loses its value.
Is also part of the policy, so if someone makes a change in this language or adds to it something that the Python Software Foundation does not think "represents a certain level of quality to the community" it could at least be thought as "the trademark loses its value" by the Python Software Foundation, even if the user changing or adding to the language think it is an improvement.
Commercial sales where a substantial element of what is being sold is the Python name or logo are subject to a royalty. Examples of this use include clothing items, cups, bags, stickers, or other small purchasable items that prominently feature the Python name or logo. Royalties are 10% of GROSS sales over US $1000 per year; royalties due may be donated to the Python Software Foundation or to any other nonprofit that advances the use of Python (subject to approval).
So if the Python Software Foundation thinks your software is "a substantial element of what is being sold" could mean you may be charged a royalty, I think. What will be thought as "a substantial element"? Maybe if python is used anywhere in what is being sold?
Use of the word "Python" in the names of freely distributed products like IronPython, wxPython, Python Extensions, etc. -- Allowed when referring to use with or suitability for the Python programming language. For commercial products, contact the PSF for permission.
So do "commercial products" need permission from PSF?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
in ways that confuse the community as to whether the Python programming language is open source and free to use
Was a part of "We do not want these trademarks to be used:"
So it may be open source and you may have the freedom to use it, but does that mean changes or
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Is also something you can do without breaking the trademark policy?
Actually, there is one other free software project I can think of, php. Hyperbola devs mentioned that one had a similar problem to rust and also java.
Unless Rust trademark was fixed recently, in which case, just those other two.
You can probably do your research whether you think php is a problem or not, but java and rust were last time I checked.
This seems to say it is still a problem:
Not sure if that is in the process of being changed though.
Hope so tho.
We seem to be trapped in a loop. Someone please insert a break somewhere. In C++ preferably, in order to avoid trademark objections. It appears that the C++ name itself does not seem to be under any specific trademark policy, only the Standard C++ Foundation name and the C++ logo. And these are quite permissive:
"In general, we want the logo to be used as widely as possible to indicate material related to the portable C++ and its applications, without implicitly endorsing something or someone." -- https://isocpp.org/home/terms-of-use
There are quite a few C++ compilers (Wikipedia lists 30+, dead or alive), while rustc is the only one I have ever heard about for Rust. Maybe this lack of diversity is what raises suspicious eyebrows. Whether they are justified remains moot.
GOTO #4.
Actually, there is one other free software project I can think of, php. Hyperbola devs mentioned that one had a similar problem to rust and also java.
Hyperbola developers apparently have a hard time understanding the free software definition. Other_Cody has recently brought up several pieces of software (ImageMagick, some content in Neverball, here Rust) Hyperbola developers were considering nonfree. After checking, they all happened to be free.
Unless Rust trademark was fixed recently, in which case, just those other two.
It was, as you were told several times in this thread. In particular by jxself in https://trisquel.info/forum/rust-flash-player-emulator-thing-and-nobody-told-me#comment-175007
You can probably do your research whether you think php is a problem or not, but java and rust were last time I checked.
This time, I will simply believe the Free Software Directory, which lists all three language implementations as free software:
I think the Octocat in Neverball could only be used in that one version of Neverball seeing that
As shown at https://github.com/logos
Do not modify the permitted GitHub logos, including changing the color, dimensions, or combining with other words or design elements.
Do not use GitHub trademarks, logos, or artwork without GitHub’s prior written permission.
So each time neverball is updated you may need to get GitHub’s prior written permission if Octocat or any of Github's trademarks is left in this program.
Guix also may have removed this from Neverball.
You may need permission to put this Octocat in any thing each time you wish to modify the software, seeing it may not be the same way as first outlined.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/games.scm#n10506
php has
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from name at domain. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:PHP-3.01
so maybe only the php name may not be used, nor may "PHP" appear in the name of any software, but if it is in the source code maybe it still can be used.
I do not think a change in php license will cause many problems, as long as PHP does not appear in the name of the software, seeing that the license lets you use covered code under that license.
Unless a security update has code covered under a later problematic license.
Than even if it is freedom supporting software now, as long as "PHP" is not in the name, it may not be later.
5. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the
license from time to time. Each version will be given a
distinguishing version number.
Once covered code has been published under a particular version
of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms
of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code
under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
published by the PHP Group. No one other than the PHP Group has
the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created
under this License.
https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:rust_trademark
has
Comparisons with other software trademarks
Some users have correctly mentioned that many other software packages have trademarks, do we plan to remove them all? No, but we see trademarks generic also not under a positive aspect. We accept them, when we are able to provide normal use, patching, and modification. We decline them nevertheless when they prohibit those and we try most to provide only community-oriented software.
As an example, neither Python PSF nor Perl Trademarks currently prohibit patching the code without prior approval. They do prohibit abuse of their trademarks, e.g. you cannot create a company called “Python”, but this does not affect your ability to modify their free software and/or apply patches.
Due to the anti-modification clause, Rust is a non-permissive trademark that violates user freedom.
Should a new Forum topic be made to discuss trademarks seeing that the name of this topic is "The Rust Flash Player emulator is a thing - and nobody told me"?
Like if any trademark policy changes could it affect the status of "free as in freedom" software, or updating that software as code may be under a new trademark policy?
I do not know what "No, but we see trademarks generic also not under a positive aspect." or "community-oriented software." may mean. Maybe trademark policy may cause problems later for a community.
Do not modify the permitted GitHub logos, including changing the color, dimensions, or combining with other words or design elements.
The same holds with the Python or the Perl logos, for instance:
- https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ says that "any use of a derived (modified) logo for any commercial purpose must also be approved first by the PSF";
- https://www.perlfoundation.org/trademarks.html says that "Marks must be used in their entirety. Any variation in the form of the mark must be approved in advance in writing by TPF".
As an example, neither Python PSF nor Perl Trademarks currently prohibit patching the code without prior approval.
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/#general-goals states: "We do not want these trademarks to be used to refer to any other programming language" (the emphasis is in the original text). Modifying the behavior of any Python function/keyword/... is making another programming language.
I actually even wonder if writing that in a policy changes anything: it is the whole point of a trademark to have a name and a logo uniquely identify a product/service. To not let similar but different products/services reuse them, so that the customers/users can know what they get. Unlike Hyperbola's developers, the free software definition specifically states that requiring modified versions to use a different name/logo is OK:
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging
Hyperbola can include/exclude whatever software package. The given rational may be incoherent, for instance accepting Python and rejecting Rust based on its trademark, although the two trademark policies are fundamentally identical. On the other hand, I see as a problem for the free software movement that the documentation of a FSF-recommended distribution claims that some free software programs (according to the definition maintained by the FSF) are nonfree. It brings fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
Maybe the
or / and
can check to see if it can convince Python and any other language to let their language be edited so that users can still use that language with all 4 freedoms.
Modifying the behavior of any Python function/keyword/... is making another programming language.
Thank you for that information, Magic Banana, maybe Python's policy change was made after Hyperbola found about Rust's trademark problem.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/rust-flash-player-emulator-thing-and-nobody-told-me#comment-175219
If one freedom is lacking, that means its non-free, doesn't it?
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/rust-flash-player-emulator-thing-and-nobody-told-me#comment-175223
Changing the name on Python could still be a thing that someone needs to do, depending n the changes being done, like if the changes should trigger any of the "We do not want these trademarks to be used" area comes up.
Maybe someone on this Trisquel forum can think up a way to quickly rebrand things with a trademark policy that blocks one or more freedoms.
Will the program grep
have a fast way to find and replace words?
Also if
Modifying the behavior of any Python function/keyword/... is making another programming language.
is linking or using a program with a language making another language, seeing it may be like adding or modifying a function, keyword or behavior of that language.
Although any program using a dependency of a language may also need to have a script remove trademarks, if those are like a function, keyword or behavior of that language.
I do not think a discussion brings fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), just lets people have a discussion on what is the best way to make sure freedom supporting software will support freedom supporting software later on. And also what may be the best way to rebrand or change anything that may need to be rebranded or changed to keep it "free as in freedom" software.
If one freedom is lacking, that means its non-free, doesn't it?
One more time (as prospero wrote: "We seem to be trapped in a loop"):
Trademarks are compatible with free software, as long as the related policies are not overreaching (adding restrictions to the distribution of exact copies, in particular). The free software definition even specifically says it is OK to impose a change of name/logo for derivative works. Doing so, the trademark policy does not apply, of course. No freedom is lacking.
Maybe someone on this Trisquel forum can think up a way to quickly rebrand things with a trademark policy that blocks one or more freedoms. Will the program grep have a fast way to find and replace words?
sed (not grep) can do that... but there is no need to rebrand here: the trademark policies of Rust, Python, Perl, or OpenJDK are not problematic.
Thank you for telling me about sed so if I wished to
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
(1) to study and change the program in source code form,
mostly change, or make modified versions,
(3) to distribute modified versions.
or just edit a large amount of my own files, I can do that faster than I did before.
Before I think I mostly searched with
grep -r
and used find and replace in Pluma on each file, one at a time.
You may like my slides about text-processing commands:
- Simple but powerful text-processing commands: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda3.pdf
- Selecting lines: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda4.pdf
- sed: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda5.pdf
- awk: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda6.pdf
- A few words about efficiency: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda7.pdf
sed is very superficially presented (almost only the s command, to substitute). Unlike awk, which is far more appropriate to process data tables. The exercises focus on such data. They are still online, along with answers to the exercises (to learn better, you should first spend time trying to find a solution by yourself).
Hmm... I must be unable to understand this at least for Rust if nothing else maybe others?
did you read what Hyperbola said about PHP? How they silently dropped the gpl license option when php 4 came out?
As for OpenJDK, I won't really argue too much about it, even if it were or is free whichever you prefer, java is a massive beast even as programming languages go.
As for FSF having those three packages, I am not sure why they would have those 3 still listed. Although maybe I am missing the fact that trademarks aren't an issue here because no one thinks they will abuse them? Idk...
Well in any case, this still makes no sense to me.
But perhaps its pointless to beat this dead horse anymore. I am not sure if an agreement can be come to here.
Actually EDIT:
I think I understand one possibility, even if its impractical, it still could be technically libre even though it would be a pain in the butt to change every individual logo/trademark, removing them, because it is still possible.
Is this what you mean? If not then I am stumped
Last Edit: and if the above edit is not the case, when I say stumped, I mean completely.
did you read what Hyperbola said about PHP? How they silently dropped the gpl license option when php 4 came out?
I now did. The license under which PHP has been distributed for the past 24 years is a free software license, according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PHP-3.01
The issue, according to Hyperbola's developers, again relates to having to change the name, "PHP", in modified versions of the software. One more time: that is acceptable; that does not make a piece software nonfree; it is even specifically written in the free software definition.
Hmm, maybe Hyperbola does have PHP wrong given what you showed me. Although it could be incomplete the info FSF has I suppose, but it might be sufficient too. I had thought it required php logos to be removed in order to modify it. Its possible they got that wrong.
btw, For modified versions of rust and java, are you saying it is libre because you can remove the trademarks and then its fine or just in general.
I would like to end this loop in understanding something more.
On further inspection I think Hyperbola did make a mistake with php.
Though looking on rust's trademarks, even if they could be considered usable as libre, it would be a massive undertaking to remove all references of their trademark.
Java I am not sure about:
https://openjdk.org/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html
It looks dubious though.
I think I was wrong about the Python trademark seeing that
Uses that Never Require Approval
All trademarks are subject to "nominative use rules" that allow use of the trademark to name the trademarked entity in a way that is minimal and does not imply a sponsorship relationship with the trademark holder.
As such, stating accurately that software is written in the Python programming language, that it is compatible with the Python programming language, or that it contains the Python programming language, is always allowed. In those cases, you may use the word "Python" or the unaltered logos to indicate this, without our prior approval. This is true both for non-commercial and commercial uses.
This clause overrides other clauses of this policy. However, if you have any doubts about your intended use of the trademarks, please contact the PSF Trademarks Committee.
And seeing "This clause overrides other clauses of this policy." the Python trademark policy may only be there to prevent against fraud.
Also I think I was using old Hyperbola information that is saved at
not newer information that is saved at
I may have also made a mistake with "Commercial" that may mean "nonfree" in the trademark policy
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
A user called throgh at
https://forums.hyperbola.info/viewtopic.php?id=981
showed me more information about this.
Also
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PHP-3.01
shows
This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL because it includes strong restrictions on the use of “PHP” in the name of derived products.
We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons.
I think the
3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without prior written permission. For
written permission, please contact name at domain.
may be the term that "strong restrictions on the use of “PHP” in the name of derived products" that fsf.org shows seeing "without prior written permission"
shows
A. We cannot really stop you from using PHP in the name of your project unless you include any code from the PHP distribution, in which case you would be violating the license. See Clause 4 in the PHP License v3.01.
But we would really prefer if people would come up with their own names independent of the PHP name.
so if you "include any code from the PHP distribution" you may be "violating the license" if you also have "PHP in the name of your project".
So maybe any project that has PHP code in it can not use PHP in it's name, as using PHP code and the PHP name you may be violating the license.
I had thought it required php logos to be removed in order to modify it.
Not a problem either, as specifically stated in the free software definition. One more time (please read):
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging
And you can read https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#trademarks too. It confirms that "as long as the practical requirements are reasonable, free system distributions may include [trademarked] programs, either with or without the trademarks". Requiring to change the name or remove logos in *modified* version is reasonable. It is even the point of registering a trademark: allowing the customer/user to distinguish the product/service from similar ones.
For modified versions of rust and java, are you saying it is libre because you can remove the trademarks and then its fine or just in general.
As written above, "it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours". Not only for Rust or Java. In general.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires