4 ms·

I was reluctant to switch to tmux, but screen's never fixing its UTF8 display in hardstatus makes me sad.

by roylez 10y ago

cm3 10y ago
Is this a known and reported bug? Can I encourage you to report it on the mailing list? The current maintainers are receptive to feedback and relatively quick with patches.
daveguy 10y ago
On the plus side tmux is a BSD style license and not GPL. So it is a more free (as in libre) software. Edit: I guess that was obvious considering this gnu screen announcement contains as much (or more) discussion about tmux as screen.
- goodplay 10y ago
  Unless your usage includes redistribution, GPL/BSD licensing differences have little effect on end-users. Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    > Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee. That is just false. BSD has fewer restrictions. GPL has more restrictions. No subjective interpretation needed.
    - liw 10y ago
      The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. The GPL doesn't. To me, this means the GPL wins on freedom. Not everyone agrees. Hence, subjective interpretation. Saying otherwise is just trolling.
      - nercht12 10y ago
        >> "The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free." Let's clarify: Technically, it allows the copy (distributed with the proprietary software) to become non-free, though the original and any other copies of the original are still free. Technically, BSD is more "free" than GPL to the first copier, even if not so to everyone else who obtains it from the first copier. The "subjective interpretation" then is from the point of view of the next guy in line.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. No, it doesn't. It allows non-free software being made incorporating the free software, but the free software remains free. It also allows free software with different terms than the original to be made also incorporating the free software which remains available under the original terms.
    - susam 10y ago
      In case of open source licenses, the opposite of "restrictive" is "permissive", not "more free". Yes, the BSD license has fewer restrictions than the GPL. That makes the BSD license a more permissive license, not necessarily a more free license. The BSD license allows licensed code to be used in proprietary software but the GPL requires any derivative work to be licensed under the GPL thereby guaranteeing that the licensed code is always used in free software. Therefore, one can argue that the GPL license is "more free".
    - belorn 10y ago
      Free, that being freedom, that being liberty, is not based on the existence of restrictions. The place where everyone can enjoy freedom the most is not the jungle, nor is it the lawless land. Freedom from oppression means that the oppressors are restricted, and you can't install your spyware and call it DRM that can't be legally removed. Freedom from coercion means that you can't coerce someone, and security researchers can live without fear of EUAL's or copyright licenses that forbid the disassembling of software. No 7-year-old girl will be sued because of art which is based on what I have made, and no one will be sent to prison because they dared to share a copy to a friend. "freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws'. Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society." - John Locke (1632–1704)
- cyphar 10y ago
  I'm actually saddened that things like tmux and zsh are under weak licenses. The GPL is a license designed to maintain users freedom, and the authors of many programs seem to not care enough about that anymore. It's almost as though they don't realise what an innovative license the GPL was and still is.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    As with many tings i think you need to experience the bad side directly before you come to appreciate the good side. Without it you do not have the mental yardstick to evaluate things properly.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      You mean write proprietary software? I refuse to do that. To be fair, I have contributed code to Apache licensed projects (and in fact I maintain one). It still annoys me that it's not GPL licensed (the annoyance doesn't go the other way around for me, I am not annoyed when a project is GPL licensed).
      - digi_owl 10y ago
        I was pointing to a more general pattern. Right now the world seem poised to enter another major war. This i attribute to the generation of politicians holding the reins has not experienced full scale war up front and personally. Similarly, one has to experience the depths of proprietary lock-in to be really able to grasp what is being attempted with the GPL.

I was reluctant to switch to tmux, but screen's never fixing its UTF8 display in hardstatus makes me sad.

by roylez 10y ago

I was reluctant to switch to tmux, but screen's never fixing its UTF8 display in hardstatus makes me sad.

cm3 10y ago

Is this a known and reported bug? Can I encourage you to report it on the mailing list? The current maintainers are receptive to feedback and relatively quick with patches.

daveguy 10y ago

On the plus side tmux is a BSD style license and not GPL. So it is a more free (as in libre) software. Edit: I guess that was obvious considering this gnu screen announcement contains as much (or more) discussion about tmux as screen.

goodplay 10y ago
Unless your usage includes redistribution, GPL/BSD licensing differences have little effect on end-users. Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee.
- daveguy 10y ago
  > Also, the definition of one license is "more free" than the other is completely subjective and is wholly dependent on the perspective of the licensee. That is just false. BSD has fewer restrictions. GPL has more restrictions. No subjective interpretation needed.
  - liw 10y ago
    The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. The GPL doesn't. To me, this means the GPL wins on freedom. Not everyone agrees. Hence, subjective interpretation. Saying otherwise is just trolling.
    - nercht12 10y ago
      >> "The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free." Let's clarify: Technically, it allows the copy (distributed with the proprietary software) to become non-free, though the original and any other copies of the original are still free. Technically, BSD is more "free" than GPL to the first copier, even if not so to everyone else who obtains it from the first copier. The "subjective interpretation" then is from the point of view of the next guy in line.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The BSD license allows the software to be made non-free. No, it doesn't. It allows non-free software being made incorporating the free software, but the free software remains free. It also allows free software with different terms than the original to be made also incorporating the free software which remains available under the original terms.
  - susam 10y ago
    In case of open source licenses, the opposite of "restrictive" is "permissive", not "more free". Yes, the BSD license has fewer restrictions than the GPL. That makes the BSD license a more permissive license, not necessarily a more free license. The BSD license allows licensed code to be used in proprietary software but the GPL requires any derivative work to be licensed under the GPL thereby guaranteeing that the licensed code is always used in free software. Therefore, one can argue that the GPL license is "more free".
  - belorn 10y ago
    Free, that being freedom, that being liberty, is not based on the existence of restrictions. The place where everyone can enjoy freedom the most is not the jungle, nor is it the lawless land. Freedom from oppression means that the oppressors are restricted, and you can't install your spyware and call it DRM that can't be legally removed. Freedom from coercion means that you can't coerce someone, and security researchers can live without fear of EUAL's or copyright licenses that forbid the disassembling of software. No 7-year-old girl will be sued because of art which is based on what I have made, and no one will be sent to prison because they dared to share a copy to a friend. "freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws'. Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society." - John Locke (1632–1704)
cyphar 10y ago
I'm actually saddened that things like tmux and zsh are under weak licenses. The GPL is a license designed to maintain users freedom, and the authors of many programs seem to not care enough about that anymore. It's almost as though they don't realise what an innovative license the GPL was and still is.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  As with many tings i think you need to experience the bad side directly before you come to appreciate the good side. Without it you do not have the mental yardstick to evaluate things properly.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    You mean write proprietary software? I refuse to do that. To be fair, I have contributed code to Apache licensed projects (and in fact I maintain one). It still annoys me that it's not GPL licensed (the annoyance doesn't go the other way around for me, I am not annoyed when a project is GPL licensed).
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      I was pointing to a more general pattern. Right now the world seem poised to enter another major war. This i attribute to the generation of politicians holding the reins has not experienced full scale war up front and personally. Similarly, one has to experience the depths of proprietary lock-in to be really able to grasp what is being attempted with the GPL.