Online book on command-line Linux usage, and Gentoo Linux in particular (Turkish Translation Fork) [I didn't continue]
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
This repo is archived. You can view files and clone it, but cannot push or open issues/pull-requests.
 
 

791 lines
37 KiB

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE chapter PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.5//EN"
"http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd">
<chapter>
<title>How does Free Software affect Linux?</title>
<section>
<title>Introduction</title>
<para>The Linux OS has become increasingly popular mainly due to the
freedom it allows (and of course also the low or zero-fee price of the
entire operating system). In this chapter we see how these freedoms come
to life and how they are protected and sustained.</para>
<para>We also take a look at the development model used by free software
projects in general because it is a major result of said freedoms, one
that makes free software projects often more interesting than
closed-source commercial software projects. The development model is also
one of the major strengths of free software.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Free Software</title>
<para>If we take a step back from all technical aspects, Linux differs
from the closed-source commercial software in an important aspect:
licensing. Licensing is what drives free software...</para>
<section>
<title>What are Software Licenses?</title>
<para>Software is someone's intellectual property. Intellectual
property<indexterm>
<primary>intellectual property</primary>
</indexterm> is a heavy word that shouldn't be interpreted to anything
else than the result of some effort to create something that is not a
plain copy. If you write some text, the resulting text is your
intellectual property (unless you've copied it from somewhere).</para>
<para>Intellectual property is protected by law. Copyright<indexterm>
<primary>copyright</primary>
</indexterm> protects your intellectual property by prohibiting others
to copy, adapt, reproduce and/or redistribute your ``thing'' without
your consent. Mind you though that not every intellectual property is
copyright protected and copyright differs from country to country. An
example of intellectual property that isn't copyright protected is a
mathematical method: even though the inventor of the method had to
ponder years and years on it, his method isn't copyright protected (but
if he wrote a text about this method, the text itself is). Copyright is
automatically assigned: it doesn't cost you anything and it is broadly
accepted.</para>
<para>Another protection is a patent<indexterm>
<primary>patent</primary>
</indexterm>. Patents are (or should be) granted to new inventions who
are not known to the public at the time of the patent request. Patents
are often used to protect intellectual property that isn't protected by
the copyright: methods for doing stuff (including medical compositions).
Sadly, the industry is often abusing patents for much more when they
have a patent with a broad action field: the patent covers too much,
allowing the company to force others not to use a method they actually
do have the right to use. Also, both the request and the patent grant
are very costly and only larger companies have the abilities to obtain
(and protect) several patents. Smaller companies or individuals don't
have the means to obtain a patent, let alone protect themselves in a
court because they might have used a method that is described in one or
more patents.</para>
<para>I use the word <emphasis>abuse</emphasis> because companies often
get patents for methods that are broadly used or are so silly that you'd
wonder what patent office (patent requests are - or should be - checked
for their validity before they are granted) has granted those
patents.</para>
<para>I'll abstain from elaborating on this (politically sensitive)
topic more and move on to <emphasis>software
licenses</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>software license</primary>
</indexterm>. A software license is a contract between you, the
software user, and the software copyright owner. It tells you what you
can and cannot do with the software. Any software that is not licensed
is fully copyright protected, meaning you shouldn't even have it, let
alone run it.</para>
<para>Most commercial-grade licenses are often called the
EULAs<indexterm>
<primary>EULA</primary>
</indexterm>, or End User License Agreements. They usually say what
you are allowed to do with the software (often including what you are
allowed to use the software for). The EULAs more often stress what is
denied rather than allow anything. One of the many topics is
redistribution of the software. Most EULAs explicitly disallow
redistribution.</para>
<para>Linux (and free software in general) is different. The
accompanying license grants you the right to copy the software, obtain
the source code, modify it and redistribute it (with or without
modifications) and even sell it. Because there are many variations
possible there are many popular licenses.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>What Licenses Exist?</title>
<para>I'll list a few of the more popular licenses here, but be advised,
there are more than 800 licenses around. Many of those licenses are
quite similar (or are exactly the same) and the free software community
should start to consolidate all those licenses in a much smaller set.
Sadly, they haven't done so yet. Luckily, the 90-10 rule here applies:
90% of all free software uses 10% of the free software (or other)
licenses. The other licenses are only marginally used, sometimes just
for a single application.</para>
<section>
<title>Public Domain</title>
<para>When software is placed under the public domain, you're free to
do whatever you want with it: the author waves any right he can to
allow for full freedom of his software.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>MIT License and some BSD-like Licenses</title>
<para>The MIT license and some BSD-like licenses are almost like the
public domain, but ask you to keep the copyright notice intact. This
is a very popular license because the author allows you to do whatever
you want as long as you keep his name on the product copyright notice
as well.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>GPL</title>
<para>The GNU Public License<indexterm>
<primary>GPL</primary>
</indexterm> is the most widely used free software license, but for
some people also the most restrictive free software license. The GPL
tells you that you can do whatever you want with the software, as long
as you provide the source code of your modifications to whoever you
distributed the modified version to and as long as this modification
is under the GPL as well.</para>
<para>The Linux kernel is GPL licensed.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>OSI Approved Licenses</title>
<para>An OSI approved license is a license that adheres to the
<emphasis>Open Source Definition</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>Open Source Definition</primary>
</indexterm> written down by the <emphasis>Open Source
Initiative</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>Open Source Initiative</primary>
</indexterm><indexterm>
<primary>OSI</primary>
</indexterm> of which the following points are a free
interpretation:</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>free redistribution</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>source code available</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>modifications are allowed (including redistribution)</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>no discrimination (people, fields ...)</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</section>
<section>
<title>FSF Approved Licenses</title>
<para>An FSF<indexterm>
<primary>FSF</primary>
</indexterm> approved license adheres to the <emphasis>Free Software
</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>free software</primary>
</indexterm>definition written down by the <emphasis>Free Software
Foundation</emphasis> of which the following points are the core of
the definition:</para>
<para>You should be free to ...</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>run the program for any purpose</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>study how the program works and adapt it to your
needs</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>redistribute copies</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>improve the program and release your changes to the
public</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</section>
</section>
<section>
<title>Free Software isn't Non-Commercial</title>
<para>Free software is often perceived to be a pure hobbyist project: it
would not be commercially viable to bring free software to the
enterprise world. After all, if software is freely available, what kind
of profit could a company make from it. Nothing could be further from
the truth...</para>
<para>It is true that free software requires a different look on
software in a commercial environment (including companies). Companies
who <emphasis>use</emphasis> software want to be assured that they have
support for the software when things go wrong. They often close (costly)
support contracts with the software company where service level
agreements (abbreviated to SLAs) are defined. Based on these contracts,
the company has the assurance that if certain services become
unavailable, the supporting company will do whatever it can to bring the
service back or, in some occasions, compensate the financial damage that
the downfall has caused.</para>
<para>Most of the time, these support contracts are closed with the
software company itself because it has the most knowledge of the
software (as it is probably the only company with access to the software
code). Sadly, as good as this reason is, companies don't look at free
software ``because there is no support''. This isn't true; support for
free software is still (commercially) available, but most of the time
not from the creators themselves. And although this scares the
companies, the reason why this support is still as good as with
off-the-shelf software remains the same: the supporting company has
access to the source code of the tool and has professional knowledge
about the tool. It probably has developers in the software project
itself.</para>
<para>Companies that <emphasis>sell</emphasis> software are of course
often against free software. When these companies major income depends
on the sales of their software, it would not be viable to make the
software free. If they would, competiting companies would have full
access to the source code and improve their own product with it.</para>
<para>I don't think this is a disadvantage though. Software companies
should use their main strength: knowledge about the tool. As mentioned
before, other companies often want to close support contracts to ensure
the service that the software delivers; if the software company creates
free software, this wouldn't change. For many software companies,
support contracts are the main source of income.</para>
<para>It is still possible to sell free software; some pioneering
companies are payed to made modifications to free software because
companies don't have the resources to do so themselves. These companies
can keep the modifications private if the free software license allows
this) but can also bring these modifications to the public by
contributing it to the software project itself.</para>
<para>A major proof of this is the acceptance of free software by major
software players such as Sun Microsystems and IBM, and the emergance of
new software players that build their business upon free software, such
as RedHat or MySQL<indexterm>
<primary>MySQL</primary>
</indexterm> (recently acquired by Sun Microsystems). The latter
company uses a dual-licensed software approach: the MySQL source code is
available in two licenses, a free software one for the public and a more
closed one for companies who want support from MySQL itself. Using a
dual-licensed approach allows the company to support a fixed state of
their product while keeping the software free. Supporting a fixed state
of the product is of course much easier than to support the software in
general.</para>
<para>However, don't think that every free software project is
enterprise-ready or that you will be able to find (paid) support for
every software project. You should carefully check out every software
title you want to use if you want to use software, free or not. For end
users, distributions help you to pick software. If a distribution
packages a certain software title, it feels that the software title is
stable and well supported.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>So Linux is Free?</title>
<para>Yes, Linux is free. It is certainly free in the sense of ``free
speech'' and although most software titles are also free in the sense of
``free beer'', you shouldn't be surprised to see distributions you can
or have to pay for. In that case, you can be paying for the software
medium (the burned DVD), accompanying printed documentation, 30-day
installation and usage support or for the resources that the
distribution has to acquire itself (like infrastructure).</para>
<para>Most distributions have free downloads with online documentation
and wonderfull community support (active mailing lists or Internet
fora), which is why Linux is that popular: you can download, install and
use several distributions to decide which one is best for you. You can
try the software (without loosing any functionality) and you don't even
have to pay for it to continue using it (as is the case with
shareware<indexterm>
<primary>shareware</primary>
</indexterm>). Gentoo is one of those distribution projects. Such
distributions get their financial backing (for infrastructure and
organisational needs, including juridical support and bureaucratic
paperwork) from user donations or sales of pressed DVDs. Companies also
tend to support distributions financially or with hardware / bandwidth
donations.</para>
<para>Some distributions are only available when you pay for it. In that
case you often pay for the support or for additional software in the
distribution which isn't freely available. A popular distribution is
RedHat Enterprise Linux, a Linux distribution specifically targetting
companies who want to set up Linux servers. You don't just pay for the
support, but also for the resources that RedHat has put in the
distribution to make it certified for other software (such as Oracle and
SAP) so that you can run (with support from the software company) this
software on your RHEL installations.</para>
<para>It is important however to understand that distribution projects
only develop a very small part of the software that you install on your
system. Most software comes from other free software projects and these
projects often don't get gifts from the distribution projects.
Nonetheless they do face the same problems as any other (larger) free
software project: bureaucratic paperwork, juridical support,
infrastructure needs, ... So it comes to no surprise that these projects
also have the same income streams as the distribution projects: user
gifts, commercial sponsorship and software / support sales.</para>
</section>
</section>
<section>
<title>Development Model</title>
<para>Due to the nature of free software projects, you'll find that it has
quite some differences with closed-source commercial, off the shelf
software...</para>
<section>
<title>Multi-Project Development</title>
<para>One distribution provides an aggregation of software. Each of
those software titles is built by a software project which usually
differs from the distribution project. Hence, when you install a
distribution on your system, it contains software from hundreds of
software projects around the world.</para>
<para>So to obtain support for a flaw you found, or an issue you come
across, the first place to seek support would be the distribution, but
chances are that the distribution will put the support question
<emphasis>upstream</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>upstream</primary>
</indexterm>, meaning that it forwards the request to the software
project that develops the software you have an issue with.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Transparent Development</title>
<para>Free software is usually developed transparently: if you are
interested in the development of your favorite software title, you can
quickly find out how its development works and how to
participate.</para>
<para>Usually, software projects use a <emphasis>concurrent versioning
system</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>concurrent versioning system</primary>
</indexterm> such as CVS<indexterm>
<primary>CVS</primary>
</indexterm> or SVN<indexterm>
<primary>SVN</primary>
</indexterm> to keep the source code in. Such systems allow for dozens
(or even hundreds) of developers to work on the same source code
simultaneously and keep track of all changes that have happened (so they
can easily be reverted). This isn't just for free software projects -
almost all software projects use such a system. However, free software
projects usually allow non-developers to see the progress of the
development by giving them read-only access to the system. This way, you
can track every change to the software personally.</para>
<para>To discuss the future of the software, or to take software design
decisions, most free software projects can't use real-life meetings:
their developers are scattered around the world. A solution to this
problem are communication systems such as mailing lists, IRC (chat) or
forums (Internet or Usenet). Most of these communication systems are
also open for non-developers to participate in the discussions, meaning
that end users have direct communication with developers.</para>
<para>The latter has a major advantage: changes requested by the users
are directly communicated to the developers so that misinterpretation is
less frequent, allowing for projects to update their software more
accurate and frequent.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Fast Release Cycles</title>
<para>Larger free software projects have hundreds of contributors and
several dozens of developers. Those developers are very motivated to
work on the software by passion. If they weren't, they wouldn't be
working on the software as there usually is no other incentive to work
for (such as a nice pay check) although it must be said that there are
software projects (and they aren't small in numbers) who have paid
developers as well. As a result, the software is quickly progressing and
new features are added quickly (some projects even have new features on
an almost daily basis).</para>
<para>To make sure that new features and fixes are tested properly,
software development snapshots are communicated to a broad community of
testers and stable snapshots are often released to the general public as
a new release of the software. Different release types are commonly used
in free software environments:</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para><emphasis>nightly snapshots</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>release</primary>
<secondary>nightly snapshot</secondary>
</indexterm> are extracts of the source code at a certain period
in time which are built and put online for everyone to use. These
releases are automatically generated and are bleeding-edge as they
represent the state of the software title only a few moments ago.
They are highly experimental and only meant for developers or
experienced contributors</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para><emphasis>development releases</emphasis> are intermediate
releases, similar to nightly snapshots, but somewhat more
coördinated by the developers. They usually have a
ChangeLog<indexterm>
<primary>ChangeLog</primary>
</indexterm> which lists the changes in it since the previous
release. Such releases are meant for experienced contributors and
testers who don't mind the software to be broken from time to
time.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para><emphasis>beta releases</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>release</primary>
<secondary>beta</secondary>
</indexterm> contain a preliminary vision of how the final release
will look like. It might not be fully stable or complete but
individuals who don't participate in the frequent tests can try and
see if the new release would still work for them and contain the
fixes they requested. Beta releases are also important for
distributions as they can now start developing packages for the
software so that they are ready when the final release of the
software is made.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para><emphasis>release candidates</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>release</primary>
<secondary>candidate</secondary>
</indexterm> are proposals for final releases. They contain the
software such as the developers would like to release it. They now
wait for a certain period so that the testers and general public can
run their tests to ensure no bugs are in it anymore. New features
aren't added to the software now, only bug fixes. When no new (or
major) bugs are found, the release candidate is converted to a new
release</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para><emphasis>stable release</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>release</primary>
<secondary>stable</secondary>
</indexterm> are the final releases of the entire development
process. These releases are now used by the users and distributions
and the entire development process can start over.</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>Stable releases also tend to be released in specific gradations,
reflected by their version number. A popular numbering scheme is x.y.z
where:</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>x is the major version; this version number is only updated
when the software has been substantially changed. Often such
releases also require all packages that depend on it to be updated
as well because they might use features or libraries that are
changed.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>y is the minor version; this version number is updated every
time the software has been updated with lots of new features</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>z is the bugfix version; this version number is updated
whenever mainly bug fixes have been added to the software</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>As an example I'll list the release dates for the KDE 4.1 release.
Since KDE is a complete graphical environment its release cycle is
``slower'' than others. Yet if you compare it with the release cycle of
for instance Microsoft Windows its still blazingly fast. Of course, that
would be like comparing apples with glass...</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>2008-04-29: KDE 4.1.0 alpha1 is released</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>2008-05-27: KDE 4.1.0 beta1 is released</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>2008-06-24: KDE 4.1.0 beta2 is released</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>2008-07-15: KDE 4.1.0 release candidate is released</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>2008-07-29: KDE 4.1.0 is released</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>2008-09-03: KDE 4.1.1 is released</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>2008-10-03: KDE 4.1.2 is released</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>2008-11-05: KDE 4.1.3 is released</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>Just for your information, KDE 4.2 beta 1 is released on November
26th, 2008, merely 7 months after KDE 4.1's alpha release.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Large Documentation Base</title>
<para>Because the project often can't deliver human, paid support for
the software, its success is largely based on the documentation the
project delivers. If the accompanying documentation contains all
information about the software, experienced or independent users can
find all user related answers in the documentation.</para>
<para>Free software projects usually have high profile documentation,
often better than the online available documentation of closed-source
off the shelf software. Many larger projects even have all this
documentation available in several languages. And if you don't find your
answer in the project documentation, chances are that one or more users
have written independent guides on the software elsewhere.</para>
<para>There are many sites on the internet that link to the various
documentation resources and the same problem as with free software
itself arises: often you have too many resources making it harder to
find the correct document to guide you through your end user experience
of the software. However, unlike the plethora on software titles around
(making it difficult to find the right software for the right job) it is
easier for a user to know if documentation is good or not so there is no
need for a ``documentation distribution''.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Software Life Cycle</title>
<para>If you buy software of an unknown, smaller company, you have the
chance that after a number of years, the company doesn't exist anymore
or is taken over and doesn't support that software since. Something
similar is true with free software: if the project decides that there
aren't enough resources to continue the development of the software
(usually due to a shortage on developers) it can stop the development of
the software, usually resulting in a drop of support from users as
well.</para>
<para>However, unlike the case of the software company, the free
software source code remains available to the public. If you desperately
need the software to work for you, you can just pick the source code and
continue the development of it yourself (or pay others to do it for
you). You're also confident that the software will remain free.</para>
<para>If at any time all the copyright owners of the free software
decide that the software falls under a different license which you don't
agree after, you can take the sourcecode of the moment right before the
copyright holders decided to switch the licenses and continue the
development under that license (as that software is still under the
original license and not the new one). This process (where a group of
developers disagree with the development plans of the software and start
a new project based on the same source code) is called
<emphasis>forking</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>fork</primary>
</indexterm> the project.</para>
<para>A well known example of such a fork is the creation of the X.org
project, a fork of the XFree86 project which at a certain point in time
decided to change their license. The license change wasn't the only
reason for that fork: some developers were also unhappy with the
development policy on new features and the development pace. Both
projects are currently still around although X.org is now the most
popular one.</para>
</section>
</section>
<section>
<title>Open Standards</title>
<para>Because so many projects are involved, it is important that each
project uses standards as much as possible. Only by complying to open
standards can projects easily and efficiently work together. Next are a
few important standards or well perceived specifications in the free
software world.</para>
<section>
<title id="fhs" xreflabel="Filesystem Hierarchy Standard">Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard</title>
<para>The first standard I discuss is the <emphasis>Filesystem Hierarchy
Standard</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>Filesystem Hierarchy Standard</primary>
</indexterm>, abbreviated to FHS<indexterm>
<primary>FHS</primary>
</indexterm>. This standard is used by almost all distributions and
discusses the file locations on a Linux file system. One can read the
FHS online at <ulink
url="http://www.pathname.com/fhs"><uri>http://www.pathname.com/fhs/</uri></ulink>
but many other resources describe the FHS layout as well.</para>
<para>The file system layout for Unix/Linux is quite different from the
file system layout as seen from within Microsoft Windows. Instead of
marking partitions by a drive letter, Unix/Linux sees a file system as a
tree-like structure, starting with a root and building up through
directories and files. You could say that the branches in the structure
are the directories and the leaves are the files. If you think you have
not encountered a Unix/Linux file system before, think again: URLs that
you use on the Internet are based upon this structure. For instance, the
URL <ulink
url="http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml">http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml</ulink>
denotes the file called <filename>faq.xml</filename> which can be found
on the server of <ulink
url="http://www.gentoo.org">www.gentoo.org</ulink>, in the directory
<filename>/doc/en</filename>. So, / is the root, "doc" is a branch of
this root and "en" is a branch of "doc".</para>
<para>Distributions that adhere to the FHS allow their Linux users to
easily switch between distributions: the file system structure remains
the same so navigation between folders, device files ... doesn't change.
It also enables independent packagers to create packages for several
distributions at once (as long as the distributions use the same package
format). But foremost, it allows Linux users of one distribution to help
users of other distributions as there isn't actually any difference
between their file system layouts.</para>
<para>The current version of this standard is 2.3, released on January
29th, 2004.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Linux Standard Base</title>
<para>The <emphasis>Linux Standard Base</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>Linux Standard Base</primary>
</indexterm>, or LSB<indexterm>
<primary>LSB</primary>
</indexterm> sets the layout, binary compatibility, required
libraries, required commands and more for a Linux operating system. If a
distribution adheres to the LSB standard it can install, run and
maintain LSB compliant (software) packages.</para>
<para>Distributions should adhere to the LSB if they want to ensure that
they don't deviate from a good Linux standard. As a consequence, the LSB
is an effort to ensure that distributions stay similar with regards to
libraries, commands ... or in overall, user experience. It is a good
effort to ensure that no fragmentation occurs in the Linux world.</para>
<para>Because the LSB is a broad standard, it comprises of other
standards, including the forementioned FHS but also the <emphasis>Single
Unix Specification</emphasis><indexterm>
<primary>Single Unix Specification</primary>
</indexterm> (SUS<indexterm>
<primary>SUS</primary>
</indexterm>) which defines how a Unix system should be. However, one
cannot say that his Linux operating system is Unix because he would need
to certify the OS (which requires serious financial support) and this
certification wouldn't last long because the Linux OS changes
often.</para>
<para>One of LSBs' largest advantages is that ISVs (Independent Software
Vendors) such as Oracle, IBM, Sybase ... can package their software in
an LSB-compatible software package which can then be installed on any
LSB-compliant distribution.</para>
</section>
<section>
<title>Free Desktop Specifications</title>
<para>On <uri>http://www.freedesktop.org</uri> you'll find a set of
desktop specifications that are well known in the free software
community. Although they aren't standards (as freedesktop<indexterm>
<primary>freedesktop</primary>
</indexterm> is no standards body and the specifications haven't been
converted into OASIS or ISO standards) many distributions adhere to
them.</para>
<para>These specifications define how menu entries are created and
maintained, where icons should reside, but also how drag and drop
between different libraries (most notably Qt<indexterm>
<primary>Qt</primary>
</indexterm> and GTK+<indexterm>
<primary>GTK+</primary>
</indexterm>, the graphical libraries for KDE and GNOME) should be
made possible.</para>
</section>
</section>
<section>
<title>Exercises</title>
<orderedlist>
<listitem>
<para>What is the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Part of LSBs standard is the ELF or Executable and Linking
Format, the binary format for executable, compiled code used by
various Linux/Unix distributions. Can you find other operating systems
that support the ELF format beyond Linux/Unix?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Some people see fast releases as a weakness in the free software
community: users are "forced" to upgrade their software more often and
even though it is free, it still takes time (and sometimes headaches)
to upgrade the software this often. Some distributions tend to help
those users by offering stable (both in stability and in version
releases) software only. How is this possible?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>How is it possible that many distributions allow you to upgrade
to the latest version without needing an installation CD or
reinstallation from scratch?</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
</section>
<section>
<title>Further Resources</title>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para><ulink
url="http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/">The
Cathedral and The Bazaar</ulink>, by Eric Steven Raymond - an essay on
two different development models used in the Free Software
community.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para><ulink url="http://www.ffii.org">Foundation for a Free
Information Infrastructure</ulink>, a NPO dedicated to establishing a
free market in information technology.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para><ulink
url="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.html">Fighting
Software Patents</ulink>, by Richard Stallman - GNUs vision on
software patents.</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</section>
</chapter>