Allison Randal is a software developer and author. She was the chief architect of the Parrot virtual machine, a member of the board of directors for The Perl Foundation, a director of the Python Software Foundation from 2010 to 2012, the chairman of the Parrot Foundation, she is the lead developer of Punie, the port of Perl 1 to Parrot. She is co-author of Perl 6 and Parrot Essentials and the Synopses of Perl 6, she was employed by O'Reilly Media. From August 2010 till February 2012, Randal was the Technical Architect of Ubuntu at Canonical. In 2009, Randal was chair of O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, she was elected a fellow of the Python Software Foundation in 2010. She is a director of the Open Source Initiative and was its president between 2015 and 2017, taking over from and handing back to Simon Phipps, she serves on the OpenStack Foundation board of directors. "here be unicorns", Allison Randal's blog An Interview with Allison Randal by Simon Cozens of perl.com Interview with Allison Randal by The Perl Review The Perl Programming Language
R. E. M. was an American rock band from Athens, formed in 1980 by drummer Bill Berry, guitarist Peter Buck, bassist/backing vocalist Mike Mills, lead vocalist Michael Stipe. One of the first alternative rock bands, R. E. M. was noted for Buck's ringing, arpeggiated guitar style, Stipe's distinctive vocal quality and obscure lyrics, Mills' melodic basslines and backing vocals, Berry's tight, economical style of drumming. R. E. M. Released its first single—"Radio Free Europe"—in 1981 on the independent record label Hib-Tone; the single was followed by the Chronic Town EP in 1982, the band's first release on I. R. S. Records. In 1983, the group released its critically acclaimed debut album and built its reputation over the next few years through subsequent releases, constant touring, the support of college radio. Following years of underground success, R. E. M. Achieved a mainstream hit in 1987 with the single "The One I Love"; the group signed to Warner Bros. Records in 1988, began to espouse political and environmental concerns while playing large arenas worldwide.
By the early 1990s, when alternative rock began to experience broad mainstream success, R. E. M. was viewed by subsequent acts such as Pavement as a pioneer of the genre. The band released its two most commercially successful albums, Out of Time and Automatic for the People, which veered from the band's established sound and catapulted it to international fame. R. E. M.'s 1994 release, was a return to a more rock-oriented sound, but still continued its run of success. The band began its first tour in six years to support the album. In 1996, R. E. M. Re-signed with Warner Bros. for a reported US$80 million, at the time the most expensive recording contract in history. Its 1996 release, New Adventures in Hi-Fi, though critically acclaimed, fared worse commercially than its predecessors; the following year, Bill Berry left the band, while Stipe and Mills continued the group as a trio. Through some changes in musical style, the band continued its career into the next decade with mixed critical and commercial success, despite having sold more than 85 million albums worldwide and becoming one of the world's best-selling music artists of all time.
In 2007, the band was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, in their first year of eligibility. R. E. M. Disbanded amicably in September 2011, announcing the split on its website. In January 1980, Michael Stipe met Peter Buck in Wuxtry Records, the Athens record store where Buck worked; the pair discovered that they shared similar tastes in music in punk rock and protopunk artists like Patti Smith and the Velvet Underground. Stipe said, "It turns out that I was buying all the records, saving for himself." Through mutual friend Kathleen O'Brien and Buck met fellow University of Georgia students Mike Mills and Bill Berry, who had played music together since high school and lived together in Georgia. The quartet agreed to collaborate on several songs, their still-unnamed band spent a few months rehearsing in a deconsecrated Episcopal church in Athens, played its first show on April 5, 1980, supporting The Side Effects at O'Brien's birthday party held in the same church, performing a mix of originals and 1960s and 1970s covers.
After considering Twisted Kites, Cans of Piss, Negro Eyes, the band settled on "R. E. M.", which Stipe selected at random from a dictionary. The band members dropped out of school to focus on their developing group, they found a manager in Jefferson Holt, a record store clerk, so impressed by an R. E. M. performance in his hometown of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, that he moved to Athens. R. E. M.'s success was immediate in Athens and surrounding areas. Over the next year and a half, R. E. M. Toured throughout the Southern United States. Touring was arduous because a touring circuit for alternative rock bands did not exist; the group toured in an old blue van driven by Holt, lived on a food allowance of $2 each per day. During April 1981, R. E. M. recorded its first single, "Radio Free Europe", at producer Mitch Easter's Drive-In Studios in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Distributing it as a four-track demo tape to clubs, record labels and magazines, the single was released in July 1981 on the local independent record label Hib-Tone with an initial pressing of 1,000 copies—600 of which were sent out as promotional copies.
The single sold out, another 6,000 copies were pressed due to popular demand, despite the original pressing leaving off the record label's contact details. Despite its limited pressing, the single garnered critical acclaim, was listed as one of the ten best singles of the year by The New York Times. R. E. M. recorded the Chronic Town EP with Mitch Easter in October 1981, planned to release it on a new indie label named Dasht Hopes. However, I. R. S. Records acquired a demo of the band's first recording session with Easter, circulating for months; the band turned down the advances of major label RCA Records in favor of I. R. S. with whom it signed a contract in May 1982. I. R. S. Released Chronic Town that August as its first American release. A positive review of the EP by NME praised the songs' auras of mystery, concluded, "R. E. M. Ring true, it's great to hear something as unforced and cunning as this."I. R. S. First paired R. E. M. with producer Stephen Hague to record its debut album. Hague's emphasis on technical perfection le
Free and open-source graphics device driver
A free and open-source graphics device driver is a software stack which controls computer-graphics hardware and supports graphics-rendering application programming interfaces and is released under a free and open-source software license. Graphics device drivers are written for specific hardware to work within a specific operating system kernel and to support a range of APIs used by applications to access the graphics hardware, they may control output to the display if the display driver is part of the graphics hardware. Most free and open-source graphics device drivers are developed by the Mesa project; the driver is made up of a compiler, a rendering API, software which manages access to the graphics hardware. Drivers without -available source code are known as binary drivers. Binary drivers used in the context of operating systems that are prone to ongoing development and change create problems for end users and package maintainers; these problems, which affect system stability and performance, are the main reason for the independent development of free and open-source drivers.
When no technical documentation is available, an understanding of the underlying hardware is gained by clean-room reverse engineering. Based on this understanding, device drivers may be written and published under any software license. In rare cases, a manufacturer's driver source code is available on the Internet without a free license; this means that the code can be studied and altered for personal use, but the altered source code cannot be distributed. Solutions to bugs in the driver cannot be shared in the form of modified versions of the driver; therefore the utility of such drivers is reduced comparison to free and open-source drivers. There are objections to binary-only drivers based on copyright, security and development concerns; as part of a wider campaign against binary blobs, OpenBSD lead developer Theo de Raadt said that with a binary driver there is "no way to fix it when it breaks". The project has stated that binary drivers "hide bugs and workarounds for bugs", an observation, somewhat vindicated by flaws found in binary drivers.
It is speculated that the bug has existed since 2004. Org. Binary drivers do not work with current versions of open-source software, never support development snapshots of open-source software. Features like kernel mode-setting cannot be added to binary drivers by anyone but the vendors, which prevents their inclusion if the vendor lacks capacity or interest. In the Linux kernel development community, Linus Torvalds has made strong statements on the issue of binary-only modules: "I refuse to consider tying my hands over some binary-only module... I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's their problem". Another kernel developer, Greg Kroah-Hartman, has said that a binary-only kernel module does not comply with the kernel's license. Writer and computer scientist Peter Gutmann has expressed concern that the digital rights management scheme in Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system may limit the availability of the documentation required to write open drivers, since it "requires that the operational details of the device be kept confidential."In the case of binary drivers, there are objections due to free software philosophy, software quality and security concerns.
In 2006 Greg Kroah-Hartman concluded that: "Closed source Linux kernel modules are illegal. That's it, it is simple. I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers over the years about this topic, every one that I've talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, that can be closed source, it just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking." The Linux kernel has never maintained a stable in-kernel application binary interface. There are concerns that proprietary drivers may contain backdoors, like the one found in Samsung Galaxy-series modem drivers; when applications such as a 3D game engine or a 3D computer graphics software shunt calculations from the CPU to the GPU, they use a special-purpose API like OpenGL or Direct3D and do not address the hardware directly. Because all translation is done by the device driver, it contains specialized knowledge and is an object of optimization; this takes money. Leakage of device-driver source code can give competitors an advantage — newcomers to graphic acceleration, who would gain considerable knowledge without bearing the costs of developing the knowledge.
The desktop computer market was long dominated by PC hardware using the x86/x86-64 instruction set and GPUs available for the PC. With three major competitors; the main competing factor was the price of hardware and raw performance in 3D computer games, affected by the efficient translation of API calls into GPU opcodes. The display driver and the v
Open-source software development
Open-source software development is the process by which open-source software, or similar software whose source code is publicly available, is developed by an open-source software project. These are software products available with its source code under an open-source license to study and improve its design. Examples of some popular open-source software products are Mozilla Firefox, Google Chromium, LibreOffice and the VLC media player. Open-source software development has been a large part of the creation of the World Wide Web as we know it, with Tim Berners-Lee contributing his HTML code development as the original platform upon which the internet is now built. In 1997, Eric S. Raymond wrote the Bazaar. In this book, Raymond makes the distinction between two kinds of software development; the first is the conventional closed-source development. This kind of development method is, according like the building of a cathedral; the second is the progressive open-source development, more like "a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches out of which a coherent and stable system could emerge only by a succession of miracles."
The latter analogy points to the discussion involved in an open-source development process. Differences between the two styles of development, according to Bar and Fogel, are in general the handling of bug reports and feature requests, the constraints under which the programmers are working. In closed-source software development, the programmers are spending a lot of time dealing with and creating bug reports, as well as handling feature requests; this time is spent on prioritizing further development plans. This leads to part of the development team spending a lot of time on these issues, not on the actual development. In closed-source projects, the development teams must work under management-related constraints that interfere with technical issues of the software. In open-source software development, these issues are solved by integrating the users of the software in the development process, or letting these users build the system themselves. Open-source software development can be divided into several phases.
The phases specified here are derived from al.. A diagram displaying the process-data structure of open-source software development is shown on the right. In this picture, the phases of open-source software development are displayed, along with the corresponding data elements; this diagram is made using the meta-process modeling techniques. There are several ways in which work on an open-source project can start: An individual who senses the need for a project announces the intent to develop a project in public. A developer working on a limited but working codebase, releases it to the public as the first version of an open-source program; the source code of a mature project is released to the public. A well-established open-source project can be forked by an interested outside party. Eric Raymond observed in his essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar that announcing the intent for a project is inferior to releasing a working project to the public. It's a common mistake to start a project when contributing to an existing similar project would be more effective.
To start a successful project it is important to investigate what's there. The process starts with a choice between the adopting of an existing project, or the starting of a new project. If a new project is started, the process goes to the Initiation phase. If an existing project is adopted, the process goes directly to the Execution phase. Several types of open-source projects exist. First, there is the garden variety of software programs and libraries, which consist of standalone pieces of code; some might be dependent on other open-source projects. These projects fill a definite need. Examples of this type of project include the Linux kernel, the Firefox web browser and the LibreOffice office suite of tools. Distributions are another type of open-source project. Distributions are collections of software that are published from the same source with a common purpose; the most prominent example of a "distribution" is an operating system. There are many Linux distributions. There are other distributions, like ActivePerl, the Perl programming language for various operating systems, Cygwin distributions of open-source programs for Microsoft Windows.
Other open-source projects, like the BSD derivatives, maintain the source code of an entire operating system, the kernel and all of its core components, in one revision control system. These operating system development projects integrate their tools, more so than in the other distribution-based systems. There is the book or standalone document project; these items do not ship as part of an open-source software package. The Linux Documentation Project hosts many such projects that document various aspects of the GNU/Linux operating system. There are many other examples of this type of open-source project, it is hard to run an open-source project following a more traditional software development method like the waterfall model, because in these traditional methods it is not allowed to go back to a previous phase. In open-source software development, requirements are gathered before the start of the project. Besi
Artistic License (album)
Artistic License is an album by bassist Santi Debriano, recorded in 2000 and released on the Savant label the following year. In his review on Allmusic, Scott Yanow states "The music is post-bop, at times quite melodic stirring and filled with surprising moments when the music builds and builds to an intense level. Well worth several listens". All compositions by Santi Debriano except where noted "Holiday" – 6:44 "Tenor Pan Woogie" – 5:52 "Liberty Road" – 10:14 "Little Free Spirit Be" – 5:23 "Trance Dance" – 10:40 "Brava" – 7:54 "Little Church" – 3:38 "Harmonious" – 5:58 "Leaving" – 6:48 Santi Debriano – bass, steel drums Abraham Burton – tenor saxophone Miri Ben-Ari – violin Helio Alves – piano Will Calhoun – drums Willie Martinez – percussion
Copyright is a legal right, existing in many countries, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, under what conditions, this original work may be used by others. This is only for a limited time. Copyright is one of two types of intellectual property rights, the other is industrial property rights; the exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation on copyright on ideas is that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, not the underlying ideas themselves. Copyright is applicable to certain forms of creative work. Some, but not all jurisdictions require "fixing" copyrighted works in a tangible form, it is shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or license the work, who are referred to as rights holders. These rights include reproduction, control over derivative works, public performance, moral rights such as attribution. Copyrights can be granted by public law and are in that case considered "territorial rights".
This means that copyrights granted by the law of a certain state, do not extend beyond the territory of that specific jurisdiction. Copyrights of this type vary by country; the public law duration of a copyright expires 50 to 100 years after the creator dies, depending on the jurisdiction. Some countries require certain copyright formalities to establishing copyright, others recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions. Most jurisdictions recognize copyright limitations, allowing "fair" exceptions to the creator's exclusivity of copyright and giving users certain rights; the development of digital media and computer network technologies have prompted reinterpretation of these exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, inspired additional challenges to the philosophical basis of copyright law. Businesses with great economic dependence upon copyright, such as those in the music business, have advocated the extension and expansion of copyright and sought additional legal and technological enforcement.
Copyright licenses can be granted by those deputized by the original claimant, private companies may request this as a condition of doing business with them. Services of internet platform providers like YouTube, GitHub, DropBox, WhatsApp or Twitter only can be used when users grant the platform provider beforehand the right to co-use all uploaded content, including all material exchanged per email, chat or cloud-storage; these copyrights only apply for the firm that operates such a platform, no matter in what jurisdiction the platform-services are being offered. Private companies in general do not recognize exceptions or give users more rights than the right to use the platform according certain rules. Copyright came about with wider literacy; as a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the 18th century. The English Parliament was concerned about the unregulated copying of books and passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationers' Company continuing the licensing of material that had long been in effect.
Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized. Different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not, for example, in Asia. In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society; the latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product and expression of the collective, rather than to see it as individual property. However, with copyright laws, intellectual production comes to be seen as a product of an individual, with attendant rights; the most significant point is that patent and copyright laws support the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified.
This parallels the ways in which capitalism led to the commodification of many aspects of social life that earlier had no monetary or economic value per se. Copyright has grown from a legal concept regulating copying rights in the publishing of books and maps to one with a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, covering such items as sound recordings, photographs and architectural works. Seen as the first real copyright law, the 1709 British Statute of Anne gave the publishers rights for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired; the act alluded to individual rights of the artist. It began, "Whereas Printers and other Persons, have of late taken the Liberty of Printing... Books, other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors... to their great Detriment, too to the Ruin of them and their Families:". A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved.
Gratis versus libre
The English adjective free is used in one of two meanings: "for free" and "with little or no restriction". This ambiguity of free can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents; the terms gratis and libre may be used to categorise intellectual property computer programs, according to the licenses and legal restrictions that cover them, in the free software and open source communities, as well as the broader free culture movement. For example, they are used to distinguish freeware from free software. Richard Stallman summarised the difference in a slogan: "Think free as in free speech, not free beer." Gratis in English is adopted from the various Romance and Germanic languages descending from the plural ablative and dative form of the first-declension noun grātia in Latin. It means "free" in the sense that some good or service is supplied without need for payment though it may have value. Libre in English is adopted from the various Romance languages descending from the Latin word līber.
It denotes "the state of being free", as in "liberty" or "having freedom". The Oxford English Dictionary considers libre to be obsolete, but the word has come back into limited use. Unlike gratis, libre appears in few English dictionaries, although there is no other English single-word adjective signifying "liberty" without meaning "at no monetary cost". In software development, where the cost of mass production is small, it is common for developers to make software available at no cost. One of the early and basic forms of this model is called freeware. With freeware, software is licensed for regular use: the developer does not gain any monetary compensation. With the advent of the free software movement, license schemes were created to give developers more freedom in terms of code sharing called open source or free and open-source software; as the English adjective free does not distinguish between "for free" and "liberty", the phrases "free as in freedom of speech" and "free as in free beer" were adopted.
Many in the free software movement feel about the freedom to use the software, make modifications, etc. whether or not this usable software is to be exchanged for money. Therefore, this distinction became important. "Free software" means software that respects users' community. It means that the users have the freedom to run, distribute, study and improve the software. Thus, "free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer". We sometimes call it "libre software," borrowing the French or Spanish word for "free" as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis; these phrases have become common, along with gratis and libre, in the software development and computer law fields for encapsulating this distinction. The distinction is similar to the distinction made in political science between positive liberty and negative liberty. Like "free beer", positive liberty promises equal access by all without cost or regard to income, of a given good.
Like "free speech", negative liberty safeguards the right to use of something without regard to whether in each case there is a cost involved for this use. In order to reflect real-world differences in the degree of open access, the distinction between gratis open access and libre open access was added in 2006 by two of the co-drafters of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative definition of open access publishing. Gratis open access refers to online access free of charge, libre open access refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights. Libre open access is equivalent to the definition of open access in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities; the re-use rights of libre OA are specified by various specific Creative Commons licenses. The original gratis/libre distinction concerns software, with which users can do two kinds of things: 1.
Access and use it. Modify and re-use it. "Gratis" pertains to being able to access and use the code, without a price-barrier, while "libre" pertains to being allowed to modify and re-use the code, without a permission barrier. The target content of the open access movement, however, is not software but published, peer-reviewed research journal article texts.1. Source code use. For published research articles, the case for making their text accessible free for all online is stronger than it is for software code, because in the case of software, some developers may wish to give their code away for free, while others may wish to sell it, whereas in the case of published research article texts, all their authors, without exception, give them away for free: None seek or get royalties or fees from their sale. On the contrary, any access-denial to potential users means loss of potential research impact for the author's research—and researcher-authors' employment, salary and funding depends in part on the uptake and impact of their research.
2. Source code modifiability and re-use. For