Slashdot Mirror

Open source simply means that anyone may look at the code, not necessarily that you have complete rights to do anything with it.

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.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

So when I look at the GPL secion 2 I can see 3 demands to which I must comply before my program can be distributed (a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change., b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License., c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.).

However, and this is where it gets weird, the section ends with a clear statement saying: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.".

So if I have a free piece of software which I want to use in combination with a GPL licensed piece of software with my own modifications and my own additions I'm unable to do so due to the licenses. But doesn't this collide with the opensource definition itself? I have seen many threads on /. criticizing software projects and such saying they should not be allowed to call themselves opensource (or hint in that direction) due to them not complying fully with the opensource definition. I take it all of that is now different ?

Opensource is almost always mentioned with freedom in one sentence. That freedom goes both ways, it would be a good thing if more people started realizing that.

He was the leader of the Debian Project from 1996-1997 and founder of various other projects such as The Open Source Initiative ( http://opensource.org/ ) and Software in the Public Interest ( http://www.spi-inc.org/ )

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

I dislike "GNU/Java" with a passion ever since it had me waste enough time during the beginning of my Java course (the end of last year). After reading the chapter of my book for the 3rd time and changing my code once again I finally copied it to my Solaris box and it compiled cleanly. Finally I found out that the JVM I was using on Linux wasn't compatible enough to compile and run but a simple beginner program!

The only thing which "GNU/Java" displays is hypocracy. Sun has released Java for free, they also provide the source code to Java for free the only thing is that it isn't licensed the way some people like. To me "open source" means just that; the source code is open and available for me too look into it and find out what the program really does. To others there can be only talk off "open source" the moment the project complies with the guidelines stated on opensource.org. Its to protect the freedom and stop confusion, or so people say.

So what about my freedom to call something as I see it? Thats not accepted, if it isn't complying to the guidelines it isn't opensource. So why is it still ok to release a half-baked, uncompatible and by far fully functioning JVM and call it Java ? The people who produced this crap seem to have no problems at all calling it Java and presenting it as the free Java implementation for Linux while in fact it doesn't do by far what it should be doing.

So releasing a java wannabe product and calling it Java is perfectly acceptable for some people because "we're getting there", while there would be hell to pay the moment someone calls a product 'open source' when it is made available for free and provides the sourcecode for free. Why? Because it doesn't fully comply to opensource.org it isn't "real" and cannot be called as such.

So what is it going to be? You can't have it both ways you know, unless you don't mind presenting yourself in such a way where you simply cannot be taken too seriously.

Dude, 'open source' is, hystorically, just the marketing term for 'free software' for the suits, which emphasizes collaboration over freedom. Woopiedoo.

There is even a definition on the OSI web site, right over at http://www.opensource.org/ which conincidentally contains about 8 clauses of the 10 that the Sun license you DON'T quote (i.e.the one for actual source code from Sun, rather than the licenses of open source products from other people that Sun BUNDLED in their proprietary software) does not live up to. Get your links straight, AC.

Open Source is a whole lot more than just source code access. It is also about freedom, right there, in the open source definition. Go check it out, it's fun to learn new things.

cheers,
dalibor topic

The BSD one requires you to mention UC @ Berkely and has strange clauses to advertising of the software.

No it doesn't. That clause was removed in 1999.

Refer to:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

You know how many pages of tax code would have to be added to define open source?

I count two.

Second. One laptop per child. What use is two? Honestly, don't be ridiculous.

Third, take the example of peru. Peru chose to make sure that they used open source because they wanted to have *local* companies receiving the profit of their computing and networking investments, not american companies.

By giving them computers with open source software, you give them the hope to be able to build their countries themselves. Their own computers and networks, their own software, their own bridges and buildings. You give them all of that. And they'll be building a local economy, instead of having some vast international corporation doing it for them and taking all the knowledge and profit back to some other country.

RMS has four philosophical criteria in his definition of free software:

1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
4. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

See The Free Software Definition

OSI has a more specified, practical, but less philosophical definition that may be found here.

The chief difference appears to me to be in RMS's "freedom 0". An Open Source license can impose some restrictions on the end user, limited restrictions to be sure, but some restrictions. It may not be a simple matter to apply RMS's criteria -- his definition is not as specific as the OSI one, but it is not purely subjective based on RMS's whim. That in turn means that there is a difference, and the terms are not identical.

Given, that -- if you read the gnu materials -- RMS is not disparaging to Open Source. He says quite clearly, "... the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free."

Translation: RMS believes in Free Software. ESR believes in Open Source.

That means that I'm free to pursue happiness and freedom in any way as long as I make sure that your freedom and happiness is not changed for the worse (and I'm not the one to judge if that is so, you are). That puts upon me the responsibility to think through what I do and how that may affect you.

Without a qualifier, that's one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard. Taken as written, we could never put people in prison for crimes. Worse, we could never really express our own opinions--they might make someone else sad.

In that same line GPL makes no sense to me. You say, "this code is free BUT not completely because if you use it your code will have to carry the SAME restrictions". "Freedom" for code but not for the user -> which probably makes me less happy but no less free as long as I decide NOT to use your code.

Lots of people spout the "This code is free under the GPL" line or something similar. They probably don't know what they're talking about.

You are mostly correct here. The software is "free" in that, barring government exceptions, anyone in the world is allowed to download and use the software. Further, they can distribute the source code 100% for free and without restriction (again, barring certain government exceptions). Even modifying the code is free and acceptable, and you don't have get anyone's permission to do so. The only thing you can't do is redistribute your modified version under a non-GPL'd license.

So there are a lot of things you can do with GPL software that are free. A whole lot. But no, not everything is.

I prefer freedom for the user and that is why I use a BSD like license.

Most people distinguish between "user" and "developer". The GPL has freedom for the user.

You are free to use my code in any way you damn well please and if you decide to use that code in something that is not "free" (gratis) then that does not change the fact that my code still is free for me and others to use as we choose

But the BSD license has restrictions, too. Specifically:

        * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
        * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
        * Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

As found on http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

The only totally free way to give out your code is to put it in the public domain.

I'm involved with a project that is looking to develop an online community for technology oriented business customers.
Sell your idea to ebay, they might like you. (and the highest bidder wins!)


  If you could develop an online community to encourage collaboration and information sharing, what features would you want included?
That's easy, BitTorrent.


  How would you go about including features that are widely available in other places (weblogging, message boards, wiki) and generating buy-in from customers.
1) Visit homepages of said OSS
2) Get the sources
3) Right-Click Ctrl-V
4) Get headache integrating code from multiple projects^W4) Discover 'magical' missing libraries^W4) Consider rewriting everything with existing code as reference^W4) Give up^W4) ????
5) Profit!

As somebody else pointed out, they have to contact the actual copyright holder to find out what license to read, particularly if they didn't actually confiscate anything that would have the license on it (and they'd still have to find out if the copyright holder had actually licensed it to the people selling it, since the license isn't a signed and notarized document from Mozilla). (The slashdot blurb is wrong: the article doesn't say that the govt confiscated anything, and implies by omission that they didn't.) Of course, there are plenty of press releases they could have looked at; I doubt that they call up Microsoft every time they see something new sold as a Microsoft product to make sure that Microsoft really did release this.

As for the guidelines to give businesses, the Mozilla rep really ought to have said, "Tell them to look for the license on http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. If it's there (and the actual owner seems to really have released it under that license), then follow the guidelines in http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. Otherwise, it's too risky to use unless you look over the license with a lawyer or can understand it yourself."

As somebody else pointed out, they have to contact the actual copyright holder to find out what license to read, particularly if they didn't actually confiscate anything that would have the license on it (and they'd still have to find out if the copyright holder had actually licensed it to the people selling it, since the license isn't a signed and notarized document from Mozilla). (The slashdot blurb is wrong: the article doesn't say that the govt confiscated anything, and implies by omission that they didn't.) Of course, there are plenty of press releases they could have looked at; I doubt that they call up Microsoft every time they see something new sold as a Microsoft product to make sure that Microsoft really did release this.

As for the guidelines to give businesses, the Mozilla rep really ought to have said, "Tell them to look for the license on http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. If it's there (and the actual owner seems to really have released it under that license), then follow the guidelines in http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. Otherwise, it's too risky to use unless you look over the license with a lawyer or can understand it yourself."

Any license listed on the Open Source Initiative's Licenses page is certified to adhere to the Open Source Definition, and the very first item on that list is Free Redistribution. Thus, knowing that the MPL is an OSI-certified Open Source license, you can be sure that it allows you to redistribute MPL software without ever having to read the MPL itself.

Furthermore, Firefox is dual-licensed (GPL/MPL). Since you (probably) know that the GPL allows redistribution, you don't actually need to know whether the MPL allows it or not, since you could simply redistribute it under the GPL's terms instead.

Disclaimer: IANAL and this is not legal advice.

Any license listed on the Open Source Initiative's Licenses page is certified to adhere to the Open Source Definition, and the very first item on that list is Free Redistribution. Thus, knowing that the MPL is an OSI-certified Open Source license, you can be sure that it allows you to redistribute MPL software without ever having to read the MPL itself.

Furthermore, Firefox is dual-licensed (GPL/MPL). Since you (probably) know that the GPL allows redistribution, you don't actually need to know whether the MPL allows it or not, since you could simply redistribute it under the GPL's terms instead.

Disclaimer: IANAL and this is not legal advice.

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.

I read this to mean that any Open Source software can be forked. The MIT license is just as good as the GPL in this regard. All you need is an existing copy of the source.

It fails the very first part of the Open Source Definition because non-open-source products have to buy a (rather expensive) license.

A lot of companies stand to get caught in the crossfire between Oracle and MySQL.

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.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

It's not that he says that they're incompatible; it's that they are actually illegal to use in conjunction with GPLed code. If you look at the FSF licenses page, you'll see that there are several free software licenses which are not GPL-compatible: they're free, but due to certain provisions they cannot be legally mixed.

The same idea applies 1-to-1 to OSS. Tivo's software is one example of how the OSS ideal was distorted. If RMS is not out there as an idealogical enforcer, then OSS becomes meaningless as soon as clever people exploit it some more.

This would be true if Stallman was the only proponent of the definition of open source. (i.e., editable source with binaries) He isn't.

Try going here sometime and looking through all of the licenses which Stallman not only had no part in authoring, but which he also would actually say are not "GPL compatible."

Linux not only is now sufficiently well known, but is also sufficiently profitable that FOSS is entirely capable of surviving on its' own. The other thing you're not taking into account is that virtually all of the threats to its' continued existence originate in the US. The US itself is welcome to become as draconian as it wants; thanks to the unceasing efforts of George W. Bush, the country is becoming less relevant to the rest of the planet by the day, and hence, US domestic law soon won't be something that the rest of the planet needs to care about either. Thus, even if FOSS vanished from the US, it will not from the rest of the world any time soon.

Stallman does harm to Linux's forward progress because of the image he conveys; that of an aging, "neurologically diverse", (to use the politically correct term) Marxist hippie who refuses to deal even marginally with anybody who has views differing from his own. This is not an image or a person that most businesses or individuals wish to be in any way associated with, and for good reason.

Stallman was a lot more relevant back when FOSS was still the exclusive domain of individuals like him; they're the type of people you'll see almost exclusively if you hire a DVD of the documentary "Trekkies," sometime. Because these days however, Linux and other FOSS projects are increasingly becoming the domain of more normal people, and because FOSS's long term survival depends on it becoming as widely adopted as possible, Stallman is no longer an appropriate figurehead for it. It makes sense that geeks and hippies would want a fellow hippie as a leader, (if they want one at all, that is) as such would be someone that they could relate to. Mainstream individuals however want someone mainstream to deal with, and whatever other word you might want to apply to Stallman, "mainstream" certainly is not one that could be.

Times change, and what is useful during one period in history does not necessarily remain useful in another. There indeed was a time when Stallman was valuable, necessary, and relevant...but that time has fairly long since passed.

Open Source is not some open ended concept, it has a clear definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Here's a link to the classic paper, Fuzz Revisited. I'd provide a link to the first fuzz paper, but I'm not able to locate it.

Why do you need to create another license?
Just pick one: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php

I have released a good amount of software under an open-source license, but not the GPL. I require that no one can make commercial use of my software.

Then what you are doing is not open source, and should not be called such. Please read the actual Open Source Definition, specifically point 6, rather than just assuming, "Well, I'm not one of those godless commies or smelly hippies from GNU, so I must be Open Source instead of Free Software."

Do what you want to do with your own IP; that's cool. It's your right. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim what you're distributing is open source. Can you identify the license you used on the list of Open Source licenses? No? Then why are you calling it Open Source?

I have released a good amount of software under an open-source license, but not the GPL. I require that no one can make commercial use of my software.

Then what you are doing is not open source, and should not be called such. Please read the actual Open Source Definition, specifically point 6, rather than just assuming, "Well, I'm not one of those godless commies or smelly hippies from GNU, so I must be Open Source instead of Free Software."

Do what you want to do with your own IP; that's cool. It's your right. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim what you're distributing is open source. Can you identify the license you used on the list of Open Source licenses? No? Then why are you calling it Open Source?

It is a slanderous urban legend that the license terms for OSS are impossible to enumerate. They are hard to find sometimes, and if you really want to be thorough about it you need to just give up and buy a supported OS.

But all the licenses you are likely to encounter are listed here:

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

And once you have those the risks with "unlicensed" or "non-GPL" compliant software isn't any greater than any other OS.

Such cause would be a violation of the "License Must Not Restrict Other Software" rule in the Open Source definition. Distributors of software have the right to make their own choices about their own software. Opening a legal door only to allow de-encryption is a powerful tool, which shouldn't be underestimated even if it's just a theoretical option.

the mozilla public license 1.1 is just as complicated and bogged down with legalities as the gpl. while i'm sure many developers want to just stick their heads in the code and create software, in an era of patent- trolling- litigiousness, they might as well be sticking their heads in the sand. IANAL, but i would prefer a license that directly addresses legalities arising from patent infringement claims, than a tried-and-true one that neglects mention of it entirely. and any license (gpl, mozilla, etc.) that tries to counter potential legal issues will no longer be plain, easy to comprehend, or concise: such is the nature of the legal Beast.

i am not saying one should use the new gpl. there are obviously other implications that determine a license's suitability to its project. however, adhering to a license, simply because its simpler, is not a safe approach. once upon a time, i'm sure early software developers regarded the new MIT software license as injecting unnecessary legality into their software projects. sadly, these licenses have since become the norm, and their works would've since fallen prey to copyright violations or litigations concerning warrantability, liability, etc.. at the risk of FUD-mongering, i contend that the same may well be true of present licenses that do not handle the patent threat.

If China, India, and Latin America bring in software patents, then Europe will probably give in at a subsequent world trade agreement.

Software patents are being granted, and are being used as the basis of litigation threats that the recipients can't afford to contest, but at least the courts are on our side, so far.

From TFB:

5.91 (19) The coding for the software that is used to operate the system on election day and to tally the votes cast is publicly accessible and may be used to independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the operating and tallying procedures to be employed at any election.

This is somewhat less than what is usually meant by the term "Open Source". But it seems that at least voting machines running a completely closed operating systems are ruled out.

Qt started out with a commercial license for all platforms and a GPL license for Linux. Criticism of the use of Qt for the KDE project is what started the GNOME project and their use of GTK. Many loud and annoying voices claimed that it was wrong to rely on Trolltech to develop Qt and that if Trolltech was sold or if their business failed, then the GPL version of Qt could no longer be available.

You missed a vital part of the history.

The original Qt was not under the GPL, it was under a license that was not free software and was not open source. Thus to use KDE, a user had to give up their freedom and use Qt. GNOME was started for this reason. If Qt had been available under a free software license on free platforms at that time, GNOME would not have been started.

Yes, it's so much easier to try and understand the license when every singe application and library has it's own license such as on Windows. Who in their right mind would think a choice between ten or so licenses that are clearly explained here and here is easier to understand?

If you actually want to know the answer, most of the flak Sun gets seems to be because they intentionally chose an open source license that's not compatible with the GPL.

I guess then Firefox and Apache aren't open enough for you either. The MPL and Apache license are both incompatible with GPL:

Here is a definition of open source:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

and Solaris is open source as it has an approved open source license (CDDL):
1) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

Some folks are concerned that CDDL it is not GPL compatible. The FSF defines CDDL as a FREE license, but incompatible with GPL.
2) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GP LIncompatibleLice...

Other licences defined as FREE, but also incompatible with GPL (see above reference) include:
Apache License, Version 1.0
Apache License, Version 1.1
Apache Software License, version 2.0
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
IBM Public License, Version 1.0
Eclipse Public License Version 1.0
PHP License, Version 3.0

So it appears that CDDL is open source (see 1)
and free as in speech (see 2)
and Solaris is also free as in beer

If you actually want to know the answer, most of the flak Sun gets seems to be because they intentionally chose an open source license that's not compatible with the GPL.

I guess then Firefox and Apache aren't open enough for you either. The MPL and Apache license are both incompatible with GPL:

Here is a definition of open source:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

and Solaris is open source as it has an approved open source license (CDDL):
1) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

Some folks are concerned that CDDL it is not GPL compatible. The FSF defines CDDL as a FREE license, but incompatible with GPL.
2) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GP LIncompatibleLice...

Other licences defined as FREE, but also incompatible with GPL (see above reference) include:
Apache License, Version 1.0
Apache License, Version 1.1
Apache Software License, version 2.0
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
IBM Public License, Version 1.0
Eclipse Public License Version 1.0
PHP License, Version 3.0

So it appears that CDDL is open source (see 1)
and free as in speech (see 2)
and Solaris is also free as in beer

The GPL is extremely brief, and extremely free of legal mumbo-jumbo.

If you want to have a brief, understandable license, compare the GPL with the shorter licenses, not the longer, more obfuscated ones. For any given license, you call always find a longer one.

The GPL is extremely brief, and extremely free of legal mumbo-jumbo.

If you want to have a brief, understandable license, compare the GPL with the shorter licenses, not the longer, more obfuscated ones. For any given license, you call always find a longer one.

The GPL is extremely brief, and extremely free of legal mumbo-jumbo.

If you want to have a brief, understandable license, compare the GPL with the shorter licenses, not the longer, more obfuscated ones. For any given license, you call always find a longer one.

GPL 3: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

(Just joking, I know perfectly well that the filthy GNU-monkeys will not do anything remotely sane.)

Open source does not need to "involve the community" because everyone has a different opinion of what that means - from simply accepting patches or advice to letting people submit new code which you'll audit to letting some 'outsiders' help maintain and build the code. If a project whose forks "involve the community", but which itself does not, is that project Open Source?

I hold open source (spelled Open Source or not) to *only* be about releasing the code under a license that enables people to modify or fork the code under reasonable conditions, and even redistribute it - not to define a development model. If we're going to go by public definitions as the one and only, not even the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition defines a development model beyond barring discrimination of people, products or technologies *in the license*. (Even by these terms, it wouldn't be discrimination to just develop an open source product yourself and not allow other people in on it - they have full access to the code and can fork it at will, and I think you agree that given this, demanding control or influence of the original copy is a bit ridiculous.)

Maybe it's possible that we're simply misunderstanding each other about how we define the term Open Source. I've laid out my definition above, and I also disagree with your notion of it being impossible to create Open Source software which is non-Free - just because you're not required by the license to redistribute your modifications under it doesn't mean you can't distribute them anyway. (I release as much of my code as possible under the (revised) BSD license.) But that's just it, because I hold it to be a small set of rules and a general spirit rather than a set of licenses or a development model.

Finally, of course this whole subject is very personal, both in the sense of it being something you decide on yourself and in the sense of being something that can offend some people easily. I don't mean to offend anyone with my ideas, and I also don't mean to force my ideas on anyone else. I'm just stating what I think.

First of all, it is true that if one only goes by the definition of open source then the GNU compiler collection does fulfill all the conditions of that definition. GCC also fulfills the Free software definition. Since this software package seems to satisfy both we must therefore look at some other facts to see which group this software appropriately belongs to.

Who started writing it and for what reason?
Richard Stallman did so that we could have more freedom. Not because he thought it simply had more technical merit to publish the code. So GCC would not exist if it were not for the philosophical base upon which it was started continues to rely on. GCC was not started because of any open source philosophy.

What about the name of the software package?
Humm, it appears to have the GNU name right at the beginning. I thus deduce that it is strongly involved with the Free software movement.

In the GCC mission statement it says that GCC is not only a Free software project, but more importanly that one of the main goals is Supporting the goals of the GNU project, as defined by the FSF. Not to mention that the copyright of GCC are kept by the Free Software Foundation.

You can make that group as broad as you want or as narrow as you want, but there is a happy medium where the label is non-offensive and clear to any and all that hear it .

First of all, when talking about open source software you are referring to all software that fulfills the open source definition. That is just as specific and narrow as Free software and the free software definition.
Regarding the non-offensive jib. There is absolutely nothing offensive about free software nor is there anything offensive about open source. Although I feel all warm inside whenever I hear about someone spending their lives work in defending and increasing my freedom in a non-violent manner.

Regarding the clarity of "Free software", that is something which is only a problem in the english speaking world. In most other languages the word for freed(dom) and the word for free(of charge) are different.
Open source is not quite as clear to a non insider of the computer idustry. Freedom is something generally a lot more meaningful then "open source(code)", since most people have no idea what source code is nor how it can be more open or closed but do have some grasp of the meaning of freedom. Many people have certainly heard of open source in the media and such but infer no real meaning from it, except perhaps that it "makes your computer go faster or something" (this is something which I have heard many people say when asked about what open source means to them). If you were to ask those same people if they cared about their freedom, I think you would get at least a little more intelligible answers. Going too narrow may provide more information but at a loss of understanding to your audience.

How can you fail to put across your meaning if you are being as specific, lengtly and clear about your explinations as possible?! This is just nonsense.

RMS is in error here, but not because he thinks that software designated Free Software ought not be referred to as Open Source software, but because he thinks that anyone cares.

Well, the government of my country seemed to care enough for the minestry of education to both endorse his visit and our local LUG (with money and other resources) and to hold a special ministry session were they listened to his recommendations and from that wrote a

Hang on, you're saying you believe that you would trust a FSF or OSDL-funded study to be impartial? You're saying that if the FSF funded a study comparing GNU to Windows, and the study came back saying "Windows saves you money in the long term, and Microsoft's Shared Source is as good as Free Software for 99% of users", that the FSF would then be happy to publish that study?

The FSF would never commision such a study. Their position is simply that users of software should have certain rights, not that certain licensing models "save you money in the long term." The study you mention would be more likely to come from the OSI.

Actually, there are some reasons you shouldn't just use Creative Commons for software. From the FAQ:

Can I use a creative commons license for software?

Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative should be considered by you if you are licensing software or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.

GPL licenced Open Source Software is the only kind there is.

[sigh]

Microsoft knows full well of BSD licenced software. They just prefer not to mention it since it would make their bullshit clearly that.

I guess while Microsoft slogs it out with "Linux", Sun and Apple, this will make BSD the "meek"?

Seems like the bottom line of expected profit will determine whether a bubble will burst. Besides, what more is an economic bubble than an overvalued profit making mechanism?
Profits don't seem to go too well with the open source definition shown here:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Do and should people profit from Open Source? If so, who? and how? Why does Open Source need investment? Why do people/companies need to profit from Open Source projects? Is it inherently wrong to look at profit as a desired end result for Open Source projects? If someone owns and patents an Open Source project or related project derived from Open Source, is it really Open Source?

Another interview with David Skok:
http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/62 6991
A bubble cartoon from 1875.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/The_ Way_to_Grow_Poor%2C_The_Way_to_Grow_Rich_--_Currie r_%26_Ives_1875.jpg

1. The GPL is an open source license. That means it fits very well into the open source concept.
2. From the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." That means that the GPL does not place any limitations on use.
3. Open Source has an agenda as well (beeing bussines friendly), the fact that it differs from the Free Software agenda (bringing freedom to the user) does not make it disappear.

ARGH, this was supposed to be a link to the Halloween Documents. Apparantly they have been moved to ESR's personal site (why?), but I cant find them (and I find ESR to be annoying enough that I really dont want to troll through his personal site much).

This license has always been more appealing to me, fuck the restrictive GPL.

How about the OSI definition?