Slashdot Mirror

Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

You are wrong. Find some time to read the OSI definition of Open Source:

"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

Completely and utterly wrong - and you still get modded +5 insightful!

Read the introduction to the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source - it says "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code"

Then read the first clause. See the title "Free Redistribution"? Guess what that means. While you are about it take a look at clause 3 "Derived Works".

Not really, since there are plenty of actual open source developers - like yours truly - that don't want to subscribe to the militia-style enforced 'freedom' preservation, but who do want the pragmatic benefits of making source available and helping others. As many people have commented, open source has its own definition - that it was ever simply a 'mispronouncement' of Free Software and doesn't thrive on its own merit is bullshit. (Yes, even if some people will write 'open source' when you tell them to write 'Free Software'.)

That's not to say that there aren't people that misrepresent the concept of "open source" to gain benefits or goodwill. If this surprises you, welcome to the free market as driven by humans.

Blatantly false; Read the OSI definition yourself.

The top three points are: Free Redistribution, Source Code, and Derived Wroks.

This research took all of 30 seconds.

Vendors don't have to listen to you, but you definitely have to be allowed to redistribute.

The segregation of Free Software and OpenSource software was a strategic decision: Free Software and rms argue from a moral standpoint (software should be free, proprietary software is wrong,) Open Source argues from an economic&quality standpoint (this is a better & cheaper way to do things.)

No, but open source does mean "conforming to the Open Source Definition", which software that doesn't allow redistribution definitely doesn't do. ("Open Source" is actually a trademark...)

It is a wide misconception that open source != free software. In a sense, they are two movements that both emphasize different sides of the same coin. There is a problem with the term "open source" being used as a marketing tool for products not adhering to the proper definition, but the same could apply for the term "free software".

Salesforce.com operates in what could be termed a "mixed-source" environment. According to Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff, the line between open source and proprietary can get pretty blurry. "Many open-source licenses don't require you to fully release your own source code," he said. "How far do you have to go to be considered truly open source?"

The answer isn't clear. Is embracing standards and delivering a solid set of APIs enough, or must you release core source code? It's a debate most end users don't care that much about, but those in the developer community can get downright religious about it. According to market-research firm Ovum, SugarCRM makes about two-thirds of its source code available to the open-source community.

This is not true. See The OpenSource Definition.

> Microsoft didn't compete with Unix back in 1985 (and not 1987)

Actually, we did.

Ah, yes, the good-old days, when Microsoft was the little guy and IBM was the big guy. I think they made one or two nice contributions to Unix too. Back then, Unix was for mainframes and servers. Xenix was meant for PCs. Microsoft wasn't competing with Unix. Microsoft's market was the PC.

> You are talking about the artwork.

No, I am talking about the interface. It amuses me that you don't understand this, so I'm not inclined to assist you.

WindowMaker, in the spirit of NeXTSTEP and OpenStep wins every other interface. No pretty, but efficient and productive.

> And Microsoft does business in a shadowy way,
> if you know what I mean.

All business is shadowy.

Some is more than others. The link that you give points to the economic advantages of using open-source. The link that I gave points the business decisions of Microsoft, a corporation that has been convicted by the US government as illegal.

There are plenty of developers when you need them, but not enough when your competitors follow you into the open source world. And absolutely nowhere is it made clear to the potential open source business that you need to cover the entire support chain, because developers are paid out of the fees charged for other services.

Redhat, Novel, Mandriva: Three competitors. They seem to be doing business fine.

> Joe User just sees adware/viruses/trojans,
> lots of crashes, and the price of Vista.

That's not really true. Most malware and crash reports are wrong; the user simply doesn't know the right word for what happened.

Which is another excellent example of the shadowy business practices coming from YOUR side of the fence.

It crashes, you made it, your fault.

> Vista was released November 2006.

The Vista interface was first shown publicly in 2003, long before XGL ever showed up, and far too soon after OSX 10.2 (in 2002) to have copied it.

Not in the form that it has today, which we had a chanse to see much later. OSX was first released along with XP, in March 2001.

I'm trying to say Linux doesn't do things that make real people's lives and jobs easier.

It's more stable, faster, more reliable, and cheaper.

But there is something very very wrong about suggesting that Shirley the housewife should be using it to do the tournament schedule for her bowling league because it runs on old hardware she has never seen (let alone owned) and has a really low number over HERE on this incomprehensible screen full of unfamiliar words.

She can get a PC with Suse, Ubuntu, or Debian pre-installed. Now, if Microsoft didn't bully the OEMs about the licenses...

> it's the overall experience that matters.

Actually, it's not. It's the experience in a very few key situations that matters. Most of the time, it doesn't really matter whether you're running Windows or Linux.

But that last bit of the time is a big geekapalooza on Linux, where you have to race around asking dozens of mailing lists how to solve your problem, and then you come out the other end a conquering hero. On Windows, that last bit tends to be a few rapid searches leading to a KB article, and most of your co-workers don't even know what happened.

Every average Joe I know has a geek on the background configuring and fixing things on Windows.

Now, as for the rest of your post, well.. I still think it is easier to do things in Windows, but this is partly because most people use it so you just ask somebody (let's not go again why Windows has the 95% of the market). And remember that the easy way to do somet

> Microsoft didn't compete with Unix back in 1985 (and not 1987)

Actually, we did.

> You are talking about the artwork.

No, I am talking about the interface. It amuses me that you don't understand this, so I'm not inclined to assist you.

> Well, dodging no more: what hardware you need.

Again, not the interface.

> And Microsoft does business in a shadowy way,
> if you know what I mean.

All business is shadowy.

Notice that an open source effort "can muster more brains", but "the pool of talent ... is limited". There are plenty of developers when you need them, but not enough when your competitors follow you into the open source world. And absolutely nowhere is it made clear to the potential open source business that you need to cover the entire support chain, because developers are paid out of the fees charged for other services.

So get off the high horse.

> Joe User just sees adware/viruses/trojans,
> lots of crashes, and the price of Vista.

That's not really true. Most malware and crash reports are wrong; the user simply doesn't know the right word for what happened.

Which is another excellent example of the shadowy business practices coming from YOUR side of the fence.

> Vista was released November 2006.

The Vista interface was first shown publicly in 2003, long before XGL ever showed up, and far too soon after OSX 10.2 (in 2002) to have copied it.

> Are you trying to say to me that Windows does
> things that Linux cannot?

Not exactly. I'm trying to say Linux doesn't do things that make real people's lives and jobs easier. Linux is instead largely consumed by a desire to run on older hardware and use fewer resources, because the people working on it are going "how about we use this old 486 SX/25?!" and then running `top` to see what the system load is. That's one thing when you're all drinking Red Bull and tequila, so you can high five each other and say "that's even better than your DX/33!" and quote Monty Python all night. That's a fun party game that you can play with your geek friends. I'd be happy to join you next time you guys are doing that, although I'm certain Microsoft contractors aren't invited.

But there is something very very wrong about suggesting that Shirley the housewife should be using it to do the tournament schedule for her bowling league because it runs on old hardware she has never seen (let alone owned) and has a really low number over HERE on this incomprehensible screen full of unfamiliar words.

> it's the overall experience that matters.

Actually, it's not. It's the experience in a very few key situations that matters. Most of the time, it doesn't really matter whether you're running Windows or Linux. But that last bit of the time is a big geekapalooza on Linux, where you have to race around asking dozens of mailing lists how to solve your problem, and then you come out the other end a conquering hero. On Windows, that last bit tends to be a few rapid searches leading to a KB article, and most of your co-workers don't even know what happened.

Which is the real key situation. The Linux jockey, someone like you or me, wants to be the conquering hero. We want to forge the path and pull out the weird esoteric knowledge that demonstrates our inherent superiority.

But Joe User is not inherently superior, and he knows it. He is just a regular guy. Joe User has one overriding goal every single day, and that goal is not to do anything TOO stupid where anyone else can see it. So Joe User really, honestly, PREFERS to have his situation end up with a search for a KB article that nobody ever sees him make.

I don't think the Linux community understands Joe User. I think they look at him and go "What? No, dude, seriously, it's not hard! See,

If they choose not to redistribute and keep everything secret then that's fine.

You certainly don't speak for Open Source.

A mandatory patent license fee violates point #1 of the Open Source definition. The OSD requires free redistribution - obviously if there's a mandatory patent license fee, I can't freely redistribute the software.

Using closed-source, patented software is WORSE for everyone, not better. The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses.

A fee of a few cents a copy would compromise one of the basic commitments that the Ubuntu project has made: Ubuntu is zero cost, which allows Ubuntu CDs to be freely copied and redistributed. That would be lost if there were any patent fees involved. It's much better to not have the freedom to modify one tiny portion of the system than it would be to not have the freedom to share the system as a whole.

The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.

He simply thought it was disappointing that people who do this often don't bother to make their changes available back to the developers.

You were probably modded troll because of this statement:

I know that Stallman champions zero-price software, and only tangentially open source software. So? I prefer the open source to the zero price.

Personally I think you're just horribly mistaken, not a troll. You might try reading the the link the post that you replied to provided.

Stallman is all about "free as in freedom", not free as in zero price/"free beer". He believes all software should allow you the freedom to copy, edit, and distribute. He is completely against proprietary software -- he considers it evil!

"Open source" shares the same goals of promoting software that lets you freely copy, edit, and distribute, but they have a different public relations approach. From History of the OSI:

"We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with."

So you see, they really promote the same ideas, but Stallman has a hippie, anti-business image that many felt were hurting the movement, so they started their own. Your comment about zero-price vs. open source was completely off the mark, so it was perceived as a troll.

I'm going to download the source to Media Player Classic. I'll make some changes to it, give it a new name, and sell a binary. Only the binary. My new video player is closed source. Yes there is no copyright on it, but it's still closed source. How are you going to get the C++ source to my changes?

Open source depends on copyright. Without it the source will completely ripped of by the scummers and nothing could be done about it. Some developers are fine with that, others are not.

Copyright is necessary, though I do feel it should expire with time. In the past I said 20 years plus an optional 20 year renewal. Some in this thread suggested something similar but with 30 years. Both are a good idea.

The section:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

is NOT part of the license, it is instructions for the license to the copyright holder. When it says (at your option) it is at the option of the copyright holder to automatically apply future versions. A licensee cannot make this choice, despite there being some text in the file saying "at your option". Because legally that text is not addressed to the licensee.

You can read for yourself if you don't believe me.

If you disallow intelligence agencies from using your software, it's not open source

from http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php

Q: Doesn't closed source help protect against crack attacks?

A: This is exactly backwards, as any cryptographer will tell you. Security through obscurity just does not work.

The reason it doesn't work is that security-breakers are a lot more motivated and persistent than good guys (who have lots of other things to worry about). The bad guys will find the holes whether source is open or closed (for a perfect recent example of this see "The Tao of Windows Buffer Overflow" [1]).

Closed sources do three bad things. One: they create a false sense of security. Two: they mean that the good guys will not find holes and fix them. Three: they make it harder to distribute trustworthy fixes when a hole is revealed.

In fact, open-source operating systems and applications are generally much more security-safe than their closed-source counterparts. When the "Ping o' Death" exploit was revealed in 1997 (for example) Linux had fix patches within hours. Closed-source OSs didn't plug the hole for months.

Alan Cox has written an excellent article on "The Risks of Closed Source Computing" [2].

[1] http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-351/
[2] http://www.ibiblio.org/oswg/oswg-nightly/oswg/en_U S.ISO_8859-1/articles/alan-cox/risks/risks-closed- source/risks.html

Well, if it's from BSD it probably uses the BSD license not the MIT license. But other than the East coast vs. West coast mismatch you are correct.

Well, if it's from BSD it probably uses the BSD license not the MIT license. But other than the East coast vs. West coast mismatch you are correct.

It is the courts job to decide which forms of law take precedent.

No. It's the courts job to pass sentence, and make rulings of guilt or innocence according to the statues.

The people who drafted the statutes know the intent of the statute; the judges don't. When you don't know what your boss wanted, you ask him; you don't invent laws on the fly. Again, the courts are wrong. And again, they get away with it, because only a judge can limit the power of another judge.

Which statues? Local? Federal? Copyright, contract, Criminal? They are often overlapping and frequently conflicting. It is exactly the job of the judge to determine which of these apply to a given situation. Doing so does not "invent new laws on the fly", just because you disagree with a decision doesn't make it wrong. As to only a judge limiting the power of another judge, I simply state that impeachment proceedings are not held by other judges.

Any judge can rule contrary to precedent, at any time, for any reason he or she deems valid. Precedent is no more important than fashion; and typically, just as devoid of common sense.

Check again, ruling against precedent is a very good way to get your ruling overturned. One of the reasons judges are appointed not elected is that they can avoid playing games with their rulings to get re-elected. Yes, precedent can be overturned, but doing so normally requires several small cases which each nibble a bit of the foundation for the precedent followed by a final case to create new precedent.

When you start with the statement that MS simply purchased a decision, there's not a lot of room for rational discussion, unless you would like to show proof of questionable financial transactions....

Is there really any question that they did exactly that in the anti-trust settlement? Or do you think the DoJ and the courts did an about turn for no reason? Or do you think judges have magically grown more honest since then? I don't.

The judiciary didn't drop the issue, the Attorney Generals office caved, not the Judiciary. The difference is that Bush's administration said back off & agreed to pathetic reperations instead of following the course suggested by the judge in the case. The Judge doesn't get to have much say when the prosecution caves.

Given that distribution accounts for up to 80% of the production cost, a free distribution network can be of substantial value.
I can host a domain for $200/year. I get paid $200/day. A free distribution network has little, if any, value to me. If I want a free, worldwide distribution network, I can post to Usenet for pennies a day.

and

In this case, free distribution with no financial renumeration is completely in line with the goals of the copyright holder, and therefor does provide a benefit, and thus a compensation as required by Justice Holmes.
The person who infringes copyright is not required to distribute the work. The "distribution network" you like to pretend will benefit me may not even exist.

What you can do, is really irrelevant. As a consideration, that it exists is enough to satisfy a contract.

In the case of the Artistic license involved in this case, the goal is a widespread presence of the copyrighted work and crediting of the author.
Who are you to say what the goals of the author were? Maybe they don't care how widely distributed the work is, so long as their work is credited. And again, retaining credit for authorship is part of the rights they already have under copyright.

The goals of the author can be inferred from the license they choose. The Artistic License is a fairly open license. It has multiple options with regard to compliance with distribution, the constant is retention of the original copyright notices. Retaining credit

"Government has no business or expertise mandating the use of one technology platform over the other. Government's role is to partner with the private sector in providing the environment and business framework in which innovation, creativity and freedom of informed choice can thrive, especially in the area of technology which is characterized by dynamism and disruptive change."

        4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:

                        a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files, together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where to get the Standard Version.

My interpretation is that as long as you provide a link to the author's web page somewhere on your site, you are golden.

5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself(emphasis added). However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own.

to state the conditions under which a Package may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of artistic control over the development of the package, while giving the users of the package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications.

The GPL grants certain allowances of redistribution. It's something like "I'm going to let you download this. I have a copyright on it, though, so you can only give it to others if you follow these rules. If you don't follow these rules, you can't give it to others."

It's not under the GPL. It's under the Artistic License. IANAL, but the argument seems to be that the right to recognition is not protected by copyright and as the license waives all the rights copyright does confer without expectation of compensation there has been no infringement. From TFMTD:

It is even clearer that Jacobsen's unjust enrichment claim is preempted by the Copyright law. The Ninth Circuit has held that unjust enrichment claims are equivalent to claims for copyright infringement and thus preempted because such a claim lacks an extra element, namely the bilateral expectation of compensation.

The GPL expects 'balateral compensation' (reciprocal sharing of source code), so even if they lose this case I don't think the decision would apply to the GPL. It probably would apply to BSD though. My guess at the counter-argument would be that recognition constitutes compensation. Again, IANAL.

I'd be willing to bet that with this change, the APSL is no longer free enough to be considered a Free license. As such, it'll be removed from the OSI-approved list. That means that any projects using it can't be hosted on SourceForge, Google Code, etc.

This shouldn't really be surprising to anyone. Apple never really intended to truely open up their stuff and allow others to fully use it without their blessing.

IANAL, but does this just count as additional limitation under the same license, or would the reworked license count as a new license altogether (i.e. not the same version 2.0 that OSI approved)

If not, would it not need to be recertified?

• 3. Derived Works
  

  
  The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
  
  

• 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
  

  
  The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
  
  

• 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
  

  
  The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
  

``You can release the source to your customers without giving your customers the right to redistribute it or their changes.''

Yes, but then it's not open source.

Open Source does not mean Free or free. You can release the source to your customers without giving your customers the right to redistribute it or their changes.

Only if you redefine the meaning of Open Source

How do you make money from a web site? I mean, the client has all the source, and can do whatever with them, no? (well, copyrights and all, but its still open source, and you sold it to them, so...).

No, it's not still open-source. Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code..

If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.

Acording to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ the SUN CDDL (which is what they used for OpenSolaris) is an open source license. It is not a Free Software licence and is incompatible with the GNU GPL but it is still an open source license.

Interesting. The Open Source Initiative disagree with you, and the Free Software Foundation describe it as a GPL-Incompatible, Free Software License. Sounds pretty open to me. Oh, and I actually have read the license; I suggest you do to.

All it really tells us is that it will be one of these. I think you're probably right, but I have my doubts that they've even firmly decided on it yet. They've been holding off on announcing the How and When since May, and now they've announced the When.

You're looking at the new version of the license. But I want to derive from an older version of Apache, so I have to adhere to the previous version of license:

5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.

And the license is OSI-certified: http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php

As is the latest PHP license (Apache sister project): http://opensource.org/licenses/php.php
which says the same thing.

You're looking at the new version of the license. But I want to derive from an older version of Apache, so I have to adhere to the previous version of license:

5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.

And the license is OSI-certified: http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php

As is the latest PHP license (Apache sister project): http://opensource.org/licenses/php.php
which says the same thing.

"[Take open source.] Open source is not a new technology area. It was a new business model", SB

First RFC April 1969 for the ARPANET. The Open Source Initiative originated in Feb 1998.

"In the last three or four years, we have competed very well by extending our value", SB

"Microsoft has proposed a licencing agreement blatantly tailored to exclude free software from accessing it.", FSF Europe

" RealNetworks .. sued .. Microsoft on antitrust charges .. Our case is based on .. failure to disclose interface information and imposing restrictions on PC makers"

"Open source never goes away as a business model or competitor. We have learned how to compete with open source", SB

"Microsoft is claiming some form of IP rights over .. a total of 130 protocols which Microsoft is offering for license .. Many of the listed protocols are [IETF] RFC to the core TCP/IP v4 and TCP/IP v6 protocol specifications"

"competing with open source will have to be something that's burned bright on the foreheads of our senior people", SB

"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects' entry into the market."

"In the case of open source, we couldn't adopt the business model. We adopted a competitive approach that so far has worked very well", SB

Under NO circumstances lose against Linux"

"Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they would clearly rather use Baystar "like" entities to help us get signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions"

"Microsoft and Sun .. announced the antitrust settlement/technology pact between the two on Friday"

"Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW) has signed a deal to license SCO Group's Unix intellectual property"

"Microsoft will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO"

"there are cases where software gets monetized through hardware", SB

Like years ago when you bought hardware and the software was included for free.

Whoa, slow down there.

I love Debian, especially the Ubuntu flavor. I've been been using Linux on and off for 5 years. My day job as a .NET programmer does not afford me the kind of time I would have liked to learn, but I'm progressing better now that I no longer use WinXP at home (unless via mono, wine, or VMware;).

I am sincere about free software ideals. I am extremely grateful to have tens of thousands of free software packages at my fingertips, and yearn to see my own software in that list one day. I am currently adding DAAP client and server support to the Listen media player.

I personally lean towards MIT, but license zealots need not apply... If my software one day winds up tangled in a petty argument such as this, it would be time to don negotiating hat and come to the table willing to make a concesion or two. Debian and Mozilla Corp. appear unwilling to do concede anything.

I also believe that Mozilla is building a brand based on those exact same ideals. Building a sucessful (trademarked) brand is hard work, and legally requires Mozilla Corp. to defend that trademark. I think the Mozilla brand is as worthwhile as Debian to the open source world.

We want to succeed, don't we? If yes, we must play by the rules, even if we don't like them. Most importantly, we must get along.

My problem with this silliness is that it pollutes the Firefox brand and further fractures free software in general.

I could truly care less that I feel the need to run a script to get the "official" Firefox icons, or if I must download an extension so it can be called "Firefox". That said, "Iceweasel" is at least contrary if not condescending.

My first post was sarcasm, here is my unsolicited opinion: Use the official icon. Call it Firefox. And fuck Mozilla "approving" the patches you use with your own distribution. Make the Firefox package "Suggest" extension(s) that allows you to change the name and icon.

What would be the point of copy protection on Open Source software? The licenses encourage people to copy and distribute the software.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

Doesn't Microsoft already have shared source with select partners?

Shared Source != Open Source.

Open Source is about more than just being able to look at and build the source code. It's about the freedom to redistribute the software with your changes at will. It's about being able to hire on whatever development company you desire to enhance and improve the software.

Shared Source is mostly just a rouse to appear open, to try to stave off a migration to more truly open options. Shared Source doesn't really give you much in the way of additional freedoms -- Open Source does (and by Open Source, I am specifically referring to software that is licensed in such a way that it conforms to the Open Source Definition).

Yaz.

Argue with the Open Source Initiative, they invented and defined the term.

Someone should define what they mean when they say OSS software,

if they are meaning in the BSD way, MS has less of a legitimate beef. But if they are thinking GPL way, then I think MS probably has a very legitimate beef.

'if a program "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it"'

If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it; I think lots of companies probably would have a beef with it.

If it's adopting licenses that basically directly prevent them from doing something, I would very much expect them to have a problem with it and quash the recomendation. If it's truely a free license with no restrictions than I would expect them to have no problems with it.

Good lord. You mean ESR is insulting and alienates the very people he needs to get on his side?

I'm glad he's no longer the official spokesman for the Open Source movement any more (he has some honory position but nothing important.) I think what he had to say was kind of interesting (and said so when this article was published the first time around (albeit with a misleading title) but it needs to be put forward by people a little more knowledgable and with better communication skills than himself.

Even the FSF doesn't entirely disagree with the stance, despite the number of comments here suggesting "compromise" is some great chasm between the FSF and OSI. The FSF created the LGPL and while they officially discourage its use, it's still very much a live license that's seen as appropriate in many cases.

So: GNU/Linux users are self-absorbed geeks who learn Klingon and attend science fiction cons. You can't get iPods to work with GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux needs to compromise and often allow proprietary software. Now is the time to strike, because with the move to 64 bit operating systems, everyone will throw out what they already have and buy entirely incompatible 64 bit systems. Great work there ESR, you are truly are relevent in today's age, hip and with-it. Knowin' the trends.

Here's the funny thing. Everyone's acting like "compromise" is a big thing. And it isn't. We all want to be free, but few people haven't compromised on the Free Software thing at one point or another no matter how strong our beliefs in terms of what we use. The first time this was posted, Slashdot went one step further and claimed ESR was an advocate for proprietary software, which was heavily misleading, if not an outright lie.

What ought to be questioned is what never is. The insults. The snide comments. The pro-factionalization. The implication that he's promoting something new when he's repeating what almost everyone in the community has been doing from day #1.

I don't think that's true, for a couple reasons, and even if it were, it's not enough to get the MS license thrown out of the OSI-approved arena.

Point 1: MS claiming infringement based upon use of the software would be self contradictorary. If it's possible to infringe one of MS's patents by using their software, then that patent is covered by 2(B) and there's no infringement. The only thing that would make this possible would be if you added 3rd party functionality that infringes on the patent that MS originally thought was covered by 2(B) but then decided that the software they were distributing didn't use that patent and thus rights were not granted.

Point 2: It's not MS's decision to make as to which patents are being infringed; it's the courts'.

Point 3: You wouldn't have to sue them immediately when they start demanding royalties; just don't pay them. When and if they sue you, you can make your claim that the original software uses the functionality covered by the patent they are demanding royalties for. If you word it right, I think you bypass the invalidation claim.

Point 4: Even throwing all this out, the existance of this clause I think is *still* not enough to disqualify this license. Many other approved licenses have very similar clauses to the one in question. (Okay, looking back through the last three might be almost the same, but on the other hand, I only went through about 1/5 of the licenses.) The main difference is that they limit the revocation clause to MS. I don't think that this would be enough to get it disqualified though. It's objectively in between other licenses; it's less powerful than the ones linked above (which revoke rights if you sue any contributor for patent stuff) but more powerful than other licenses that are patent neutral (BSD, GPL, etc.). The situation is subjectively unfair though, and I think it would hurt the license's chances. (But again, not enough to get it disqualified.)

I don't think that's true, for a couple reasons, and even if it were, it's not enough to get the MS license thrown out of the OSI-approved arena.

Point 1: MS claiming infringement based upon use of the software would be self contradictorary. If it's possible to infringe one of MS's patents by using their software, then that patent is covered by 2(B) and there's no infringement. The only thing that would make this possible would be if you added 3rd party functionality that infringes on the patent that MS originally thought was covered by 2(B) but then decided that the software they were distributing didn't use that patent and thus rights were not granted.

Point 2: It's not MS's decision to make as to which patents are being infringed; it's the courts'.

Point 3: You wouldn't have to sue them immediately when they start demanding royalties; just don't pay them. When and if they sue you, you can make your claim that the original software uses the functionality covered by the patent they are demanding royalties for. If you word it right, I think you bypass the invalidation claim.

Point 4: Even throwing all this out, the existance of this clause I think is *still* not enough to disqualify this license. Many other approved licenses have very similar clauses to the one in question. (Okay, looking back through the last three might be almost the same, but on the other hand, I only went through about 1/5 of the licenses.) The main difference is that they limit the revocation clause to MS. I don't think that this would be enough to get it disqualified though. It's objectively in between other licenses; it's less powerful than the ones linked above (which revoke rights if you sue any contributor for patent stuff) but more powerful than other licenses that are patent neutral (BSD, GPL, etc.). The situation is subjectively unfair though, and I think it would hurt the license's chances. (But again, not enough to get it disqualified.)

I don't think that's true, for a couple reasons, and even if it were, it's not enough to get the MS license thrown out of the OSI-approved arena.

Point 1: MS claiming infringement based upon use of the software would be self contradictorary. If it's possible to infringe one of MS's patents by using their software, then that patent is covered by 2(B) and there's no infringement. The only thing that would make this possible would be if you added 3rd party functionality that infringes on the patent that MS originally thought was covered by 2(B) but then decided that the software they were distributing didn't use that patent and thus rights were not granted.

Point 2: It's not MS's decision to make as to which patents are being infringed; it's the courts'.

Point 3: You wouldn't have to sue them immediately when they start demanding royalties; just don't pay them. When and if they sue you, you can make your claim that the original software uses the functionality covered by the patent they are demanding royalties for. If you word it right, I think you bypass the invalidation claim.

Point 4: Even throwing all this out, the existance of this clause I think is *still* not enough to disqualify this license. Many other approved licenses have very similar clauses to the one in question. (Okay, looking back through the last three might be almost the same, but on the other hand, I only went through about 1/5 of the licenses.) The main difference is that they limit the revocation clause to MS. I don't think that this would be enough to get it disqualified though. It's objectively in between other licenses; it's less powerful than the ones linked above (which revoke rights if you sue any contributor for patent stuff) but more powerful than other licenses that are patent neutral (BSD, GPL, etc.). The situation is subjectively unfair though, and I think it would hurt the license's chances. (But again, not enough to get it disqualified.)