Slashdot Mirror

Pretty sure the Open Source Initiative already exists, guys. Could somebody with a passing knowledge of this site's audience please edit submissions?

Being required to let the source code be known wouldn't be enough to make the product Open Source, at least not by the OSI definition. You can't force someone to play nicely like that; they have to be convinced that Open Source is a good thing, first.

Otherwise, the company could easily release their source code in encrypted/DRMed PDF formats; obliging the person, but requiring they sign a NDA. And prohibit redistribution, except under terms designed to protect their rights; they may require a fee, paperwork, etc, anything to limit the exposure -- or insist on the use of trusted third parties to analyse the code.

Being required to disclose source doesn't permit others to make free derivative works either -- and if anyone develops a product with a similar function after reading their source code, the person who examined the code might be setting themselves up to have redistribution blocked (if it's considered a derivative work, due to substantial similarity and access to the work)..

Bottom line: this may turn out to result in new ''Open Source'' releases, but don't hold your breath on the result actually being Free Software; but sure, we can dream...:)

(I'm digging about for a CMS system that has some controls over content (approval, etc), is open source licensed, and outputs static content (ie: I don't want cgi generating every page view on the fly). This MI6/SIS site looks like it might be using something like that. Thoughts?)

The GPL discourages collaboration. If you want to encourage collaboration you need a license like BSD. The GPL allows restricted collaboration, but only between GPL fans. The BSD license allows collaboration for everyone.

If you are feeling altrustic, then BSD allows maximum freedom for your code. If you want the world to benefit from your code, but don't want someone ripping off your work and hiding it in a commercial project without paying you anything, then GPL gives you great protection. Even after you release something under the GPL you can still license it to a commercial closed-source enterprise for a fee, like MySQL. It only becomes a nuisance when the project grows and has many contributers as you then need to ask permission from each contributer before you can relicense. On the flip side BSD encourages more forking where the new code is not merged back into the main tree as there is no incentive. If the appropriate license is chosen then I don't think either will encourage collaboration more than the other as the license should reflect the goal of the project. A group writing printer drivers which their respective companies have agreed to make Open Source for pragmatic reasons may not want the same license as a loosely-knit group of graphics programmers wanting to release 3D modelling system. There are plenty of other licenses that can be used, though GPL, BSD and Apache licences currently have the greatest mind-share. There is no such thing as a best license, only the most appropriate one.

Phillip.

I bet this same month in 1998 some slashdot troll said the same thing about Linux. We all know what came next. Ever hear of the Halloween Documents?

Part I is to provide info on the licensing of software and FOSS licensing. Include:

• The ideas and the differences between, meaning of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, contract, click-wrap/shrinkwrap license, etc -- And how these effect software. Concepts that are important to fully appreciate the difference between closed source and Free Software.
• The Open Source definition link
• Show the traditional model examples of interoperability problems such as proprietary file formats, Patents, the enforcement mechanism, End-User License Agreements.. pick a prominent example, show common restrictions vendors place on their development tools, i.e. look at the licensing of a particular computer video game, development tool, OS, etc by a major publisher. (No reverse engineering, no right to tinker, etc)
• Perhaps contrast with the Open Source model in an example as a way to illustrate the advantage.
• Show off some of the major Open Source programs in action -- a web browser would be a start, but provide some example that the Open Source model has been successful and delivered "cool", respectable products.
• Cover Free Software, the Free Software Foundation's philosophy link; other philosophies
• The distinction made between Free Software, Open Source, Freeware, Careware, etc...
• Free documentation... Wikis.. transparent file formats, etc.
• The meaning of copyleft
• How to place software under an Open Source license, when you can, choose? Compatibility with the GPL (and between other licenses)
• Popular types of Open Source licenses to pick from (GPL, LGPL, BSD License, MIT Style, Artistic, are probably the most important); what is unique about each of the popular licenses; when they can be interchanged.
• The development advantages.. including forking and its advantages and disadvantages (consider X.org).. good reading material may be the The Cathedral and the Bazaar: link.

Part II would be software development in an open source environment; basically how to get and setup a free software Operating System like Linux, FreeBSD, etc, to program in C/C++/Perl using GCC, or a compiler set like Python or Ruby on their windows machine. An understanding of what some of the most popular tools are used for (not necessarily the skills to use a tool, just what they are used to do):

• Subversion / CVS
• Gimp
• Vim, TeX, Indent, Text editors
• Make, Patch, Diff, Gdb, GCC, G++, Autoconf
• Apache, PHP, Python, Perl
• GNU/Linux; Redhat; Debian; *BSD; ...
• OpenOffice, The Mozilla browser
• XFree86, Qt/GTK, KDE/Gnome

Part III OSS Projects

• Organize: Version control, version number management, Todo lists, Milestone charts, ideas like 'release early, release often..' What's a beta? What are nightly tarballs.. nightly builds Etc.
• Develop: Tools used to edit and test sources. How to get a copy of a source tree... how to compile a source tree...
• Popular coding styles, brace styles; tab stops, etc.. GNU Coding standards, GNITs
• Debug: GDB, Bug trackers..
• Feedback/Discussion and its importance: Forums, Mailing lists, Newsgroups

Students should have a project that deals with Open Source Software.. for the purpose of expanding practical experience -- and to write a report on Open Source, their experimentation, and what was learned, including some quoted forum posts, and patches/source snippets, related to their activities. The quality and understanding of Open Source conveyed in the report is what matters.

Perhaps to either start their own Open Source proje

1. why oss (for users, developers)
2. licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSD, definition of Open Source)
3. philosophy (vendor lock-in, naturally forming monopolies, free market, freedom to research, freedom in general)
4. how model compares to closed source
5. myth of security
6. copyrights (contributory infringement ala Battle.Net, Morpheous)
7. patents (development of PNG, Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora)
8. Jurisdiction issues (why some projects, such as mplayer are only hosted outside the US)
9. how laws such as the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA affect OSS OSS history
10. OSS (Eric S. Raymond) vs. Free Software (Richard Stallman)
11. Open source vs. open standards
12. liability
13. OSS successes/strengths (the Internet, BSD Unix, Linux, KDE, Gnome, enourmous resources, doesn't have to be profitable, software isn't out to nickel-and-dime users)
14. OSS failures/weaknesses (XFree86, usability, poorly planned, lack of polish, lack of resources in some fields)
15. Threats to OSS (Digital Rights Management, patents, DMCA)
16. How OSS threatens others (Microsoft, Bitkeeper, SCO)
17. Members of the OSS community (hobbyists, volunteers, students, paid professionals)
18. History of UNIX

The Reciprocal Public License (RPL) is similar to the GPL, but it requires source code to modifications to be released even if the modified software is not redistributed. This was meant to close a perceived loophole that gave large organizations an advantage over others; a large company may have the resources to hire its own programmers to modify GPLed code, and would get considerable value from the modified code by using it throughout the company, but wouldn't have to release the source so long as the modified code wasn't distributed outside the company.

I think that would have defeated the scheme of selling or renting appliances with modified GPLed code on them.

OSI and GPL are two competing Open Source licenses. I'm never heard of any others.

The OSI is the "Open Source Initiative", they approve OSS licenses. There are many OSS licenses, not just the GPL. And looky here, OpenSolaris' license is indeed listed by the OSI as an "official" open source license.

I did due diligence once when a company was assimilated by VC investors. We had to list every OSS package we used and its license. For starters, look here:

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

It's a long, tedious list of legalspeak. You may end up depending on "Akbar and Jeff's Semi-artistic Hut License" for a critical piece of SW. Kind of gives a VC the willies, especially if he can get a new Hummer by forcing your company to buy his buddy's crapware instead and pocket the kickback. (Not that that happens in real life, no sir.)

If the latter, maybe they'll just let you put it under some existing open-source license. There are dozens of them here; maybe some well-informed slashdotter (oxymoron? nah...) can suggest the best one for the purpose.

Odds are pretty good that you won't be able to sell your code anyway, not without attracting attention from your (ex-)employer when the stuff suddenly becomes valuable.

You can easily have open source software that's not Free: it would be the case where you have access to the code, but don't have permission to distribute it, make derived works, etc. (RMS's "four freedoms").

Open source software and free software means almost the exact same thing in practice. They only differ in philosophy: The open source movement desires these freedoms in order to create superior software, while the free software movement doesn't care about software quality, they want freedom and a community.

Just to demonstrate, let me show it for each one of RMS's four freedoms:

Don't talk about what you don't know about if you're not asking about it.
It's not free software either.

zlib isn't open source in the traditional sense.

zlib is open source. The zlib license is closely related to the classic BSD-style license, and was one of the earlier licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative, which lists the zlib license here:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.ph p

The Zlib license is also "free" according to the FSF, and is GPL-compatible:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#G PLCompatibleLicenses

zlib is simply released with no strings attached whatsoever. only catch is that the author's not responsible for anything that happens with it.

most people equate OSS with the GPL or a BSD-style license.

This being said, the OSD itself is derived from some people at Debian Linux who came up with the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", to help their project figure out which licenses were compatible with their goals. The first four licenses considered as such were the GPL, LGPL, BSD, and MIT/X11 licenses.

zlib is released more or less without any license at all. It's a few lines that make it VERY VERY CLEAR that the authors don't care what the hell you do with it as long as they're not implicated

-Chuck

The GPL does indeed require improvements to be given back to the community if you decide to distribute the program otherwise you cannot distribute the program to anyone. I have pasted the pertinent clauses from the GPL below...

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.

This is what some people call the viral clause because it says that nobody can take source code from a GPLd program and use it in whole or in part with their proprietary source code without exposing the entire body of their source code in that program to the GPL. Your only other options are to remove the GPL code, not distribute the program, or distribute only those parts which DO NOT include the GPL code. In this regard the GPL is a statement of intent by the author or owner of the source code that says you will not use my source code if I cannot also use yours.

Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

This clause reinforces the one above by saying that if you distribute program or any work based on, in whole or in part as per the above clause, then you accept the complete terms of the GPL license including the viral clause and the compulsion to provide source code to anyone who asks free of charge plus any reasonable copying and/or distribution fees.

I am not sure about the BSD/MIT license, the Open Source Initiative recognizes many licenses and I have not read all of them, but consider that nobody likes having their source code used as if it was simply public domain. How would you like to have your source code used by anyone in anyway they want without having to give you anything in return? Please be more careful about calling someone a troll...Have you actually read the GPL or any other OSI approved licenses?

You could have just linked to the zlib licence at the website for the... Open Source Initiative.

Have you seen the MIT or Boost Software License? They have even fewer restrictions. I think the BSD license is actually less restrive than the zlib license...

You could have just linked to the zlib licence at the website for the... Open Source Initiative.

Have you seen the MIT or Boost Software License? They have even fewer restrictions. I think the BSD license is actually less restrive than the zlib license...

You could have just linked to the zlib licence at the website for the... Open Source Initiative.

Have you seen the MIT or Boost Software License? They have even fewer restrictions. I think the BSD license is actually less restrive than the zlib license...

The article doesn't say whether the program will be released under the BSD license (unlikely) or whether it will remain under the CDDL. The latter seems most likely.

Another incompatibility [with the Academic Free License] comes from its "Mutual termination for Patent Action" clause. Putting aside the difficult question of whether this sort of clause is a good idea or a bad one, it is incompatible with the GPL.

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.

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.

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.

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.

However, you do reach a point where so many revisions, albeit GPLv1, v2, LPGL, BSD, et cetera, make it confusing for us developers with no background in law.

Welcome to 2001...

This has absolutely nothing to do with open source. This is about Free Software. The GPL is a license created by the Free Software Foundation. If you don't like Free Software, then pick a different license from the list. Personally, I prefer Theo De Raadt's brand of Free Software to Richard M Stallman's, but I don't claim that this group has the right to dictate policy to an organisation such as the FSF.

I believe MySql uses the Berkeley DB library maintained by SleepyCat. SleepyCat maintains a dual open source/commercial licensing model. So by this standard, namely that dual licensing schemes are not *free*, MySql has always been "not free" because it inherited the restrictions from the SleepyCat license.

One of the problems that arise from the Linux trademark issue, while not a new one, is that if all open source projects enforce trademarks, Red Hat Linux may not be able to include all the wonderful packages we know and love. The complexity of having so many trademark regulations to wade through will slow down the packaging process, and would cause smaller distributions to wither.

For example, the Mozilla trademarks on Firefox caused quite a stir as it was seen to violate the Debian social contract.

If a project is being very strict about a trademark on the name, it violates the trademark to use that name on a modified version of the product. This means that in order to modify the source code, you now have to jump through one of two hoops:

• Relabel the package
• Send your patch to the maintainers, and wait for it find its way through the projects queue and arrive back to you as an official package before you can use it with branding intact.

What I find most interesting about this development, is that the software remains free, but it is becoming less open. In this specific case of Linux, which is not a user-facing piece of software, a trademark will not have a large impact, but if the trend continues, open source will be choking on its own FUD.

> That's not my interpretation of Open Source.

It's not mine, either. My interpretation of open source is that if you have any business with the source code, the source code is available. So if I sell a software product, and I offer the source code to that product to existing customers for an additional fee, I would call that open source.

The community at large does not agree.

> What you are describing is Free Software. Open
> Source means that anyone can ask for the
> source code and get it

See http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php for the OSI definition, which leads off with:

"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution..."

The OSI definition is by no means universal, but I think most people would agree it reflects the prevalent community expectations with reasonable accuracy.

> Open Source does not mean free (as in beer)
> - it means free (as in speech).

Free as in speech *implies* free as in beer over the long run, because the freedom to redistribute is like a slow leak in a tire: over a small period of time, the loss is negligible, but given ENOUGH time the loss is total. There are ways to *delay* or *displace* the loss, but there's always a loser.

Once upon a time, Microsoft partnered with IBM to try and 'fix' DOS, and the two companies created OS/2, with the much larger IBM shouldering most of the development costs.

Microsoft decided that OS/2 wasn't for them, and left IBM holding the bag. They retained the right to use the OS/2 source, but quietly went away.

IBM went on, developing and marketing an independant version of OS/2 for a while, and suddenly, out of the blue, Microsoft comes out with an All New, All Different, Next Generation OS called Windows NT and proceeded to sanctimoniously kick the crap out of IBM on the market.

Where are they now? OS/2 is officially done according to IBM, and hackers are clamouring for an open source release, and Windows NT is up to version 5.1 (as Windows XP Professional) and dominating the desktop OS market.

DO NOT TRUST MICROSOFT! THEY ARE UP TO SOMETHING!

Knee-jerk Microsoft bashing aside for a moment, consider: the halloween documents suggest pretty stongly that Microsoft is scared shitless by Linux specifically, and by Open Source in general, wondering aloud how one attacks a process instead of a company.

Doesn't anyone else see this as some kind of a "fishing expidition" on Microsoft's part?

Maybe some kind of credibility bait, as others here have suggested ("See? Even OSDL says that Windows Server 2003 beats Linux in the areas of etc.") or maybe something much much more Dastardly.

Learn the OS/2 lesson that IBM illustrated for us. No matter how amicable the partnership, no matter how shared the initial goals, Microsoft can not be trusted!

Darren Reed's ipf is open source

Poppycock. Or in other words, balderdash.

Open Source Software has a precise definition. It is remarkably similar to the Free Software definition, to the point that there is no real difference in practice. Open Source means that the user has the permission to copy the source, modify the source, redistribute the source, and redistribute any modifications to the source. You cannot do this with ipf, therefore ipf is not Open Source.

Open source means only that people have access to the source

Get yourself educated. The definition of Open Source (capitalized or not) is at http://www.opensource.org./ Read it. Be amazed at the similarity of it to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Darren Reed's ipf in no way meets the Open Source definition. It is CLOSED software. It is PROPRIETARY software. Claiming it to be Open Source is outright FUD.

Sorry, friend, you are in error. GPL zealots say BSD is not free because they like software to be free, not people to be free. And BSD is open.. Lookie here - http://www.opensource.org/licenses

Everyone TOTALLY got it backwards. You are supposed to go to www.sco.com, NOT realm systems!!!

Interestingly enough, there is a SCO connection to this story.

You may remember the famous Halloween 10 memo from Mike Anderer to two SCO execs where Anderer indicates that SCO's big $50M dollar investment came via backchannels thanks to Microsoft and that SCO should go to MS for more money?

Well, it seems that the very same Mike Anderer is is CTO of Realm Systems makers of this device.

I have no idea how Sun ended up hated by Slashdot. They sell Linux, they open-sourced the Solaris kernel, they have cooperated with OSS operating systems to get them running on their hardware. Lets not forget a huge donation in the form of buying StarOffice and immediately open-sourcing it. The completely open and royalty-free SPARC architecture (as opposed to the far-from-open PPC). Few companies have done more.

There have been some back and forth on how they perceive Linux, but considering that Linux has been eating Sun's marketshare quickly the last decade they sure seem to have a very good relationship with Linux and related technologies.

On the other hand it is not reasonable to speak out against Sun/Solaris at this point either, since they are open-source now (absolutely no need to put quotes around it, the CDDL is just a cleaned up Mozilla license and is OSI approved).

So no doubt the Google employee can not have been refering to Solaris when he speaks of the disadvantages with non-OSS systems.

Perhaps you should read the Open Source Definition. Particularly point 1. This is not open source.

Open Source does not mean you can change it. You can have a look at the source code, this doesn't mean you are allowed to make modifications or derivative work.

This is of course not correct. Take a look at the Open Source definition, section 3 in particular.

The truth is that the distinction between free software and open source is one of philosophy; it is two different ways to think about the same software. Open source guys usually look at it as a good method for developing software, while free software guys look at it as a moral issue: you should not keep software away from people, hence software must be free (as in freedom).

Licences explicitly forbidding SCO to include and redistribute them would no longer be free according to our OSI and DFSG guidelines. We might not like them using our code, but that's one of the freedoms we have granted our users, and to restrict that would take away that freedom, and would mean that GNU/Linux distributions such as Debian could no longer redistribute it.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

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

and

http://www.debian.org/social_contract

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.

according to ESR theres 2 kinds of Unix: the "genetic unixes" derived from the origninal AT&T code (wich include all BSD variants such as apples darwin) and the "trademark unixes", the ones not neccessarily derived from the AT&T or BSD code but that passed an opengroup certification.

macos x is a genetic unix, so the generical term "unix" applies. GNU/Linux is nor genetical nor trademark, so its usualy refered as a "unix like" OS.

see here: http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html#id308718 0

I'm afraid there's something very wrong here. And I'm sure many of the /. crowd have this gut feeling too.

In one of the Halloween Documents http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ ESR talks about Microsoft being asleep at the switch. They are waking up it seems.

Just embrace and extend? That too.

They're cooking something alright. This time it won't be just FUD campaigns.

The very nature of Open source makes it an exploitable resource for companies like MSFT that make Proprietory software.

Its quite easy to steal ideas from Linux and incorporate into our own and not honor the open source license.

Tell me, who enforces open source license?

Open source people won't have the hords of lawyers to protect the intellectual property like the companies such as MSFT or Amazon do.

Back in the 50's and 60's, most computer companies were OSS.

Actually, that persisted throughout the history of mainframes. The primary reason was that the code had to be linked directly against the database. (Abstraction was not a feature anyone wanted to pay for.) I was still using a mainframe that derived from third party source code in the late 1990's. :-)

However, these companies weren't really OSS as OSS is defined by the OSI. The OSI defines Open Source as both having the code and being able to fork/redistribute it. Most of the programs sold with source had explicit contracts that defined no rights for redistribution or forking (save for internal use). For an example of this, just look at the USL vs. BSD case for an example of this tight software control. Some contracts even had NDAs attached!

Open Source is very well defined, and so is Free Software

From the article:

And what is open source? It is interesting in how you define it. Is it in terms of source visibility? Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program, people can access up to 65 percent of source codes for our core products. And through the government security program around the world, governments can access even more of our source codes, if they choose to. So we're not an open-source company, and yet people can do that.

Hey Martin, here's the definition of Open Source. Notice in the first paragraph it says Open Source doesn't just mean access to the source code. I doubt if you'd like it if people went around redefining your company's EULAs to suit themselves.

Or does it mean that you have technology licensed under the GPL (GNU Public License)? If that's the only definition, then I see a lot of companies that people call open source but aren't, because they're not licensed under the GPL.

No it isn't the only definition so your answer is irrelevant. The GPL may qualify as Open Source but it is Free Software - big difference. Don't you even know the difference?

Taylor: The GPL is a very complex licensing agreement, and they are working on different aspects of it.

It's an incredibly simple licensing agreement actually. Complex for Microsoft to understand perhaps, but simple for anyone else.

I don't know enough to even hypothesize how I would author it, but I would say that in any approach to licensing technology, the following things are important.

First, companies need to have some level of indemnification and protection from the technology deployed. When you license technology as a consumer or business, you should be comfortable that you're protected from patent (or) copyright...claims from anyone. That should be a core fundamental principle of licensing software.

Well, thanks for leading the way there. I'm so glad I'm indemnified when I use Microsoft software. Oh wait, I'm not?


Second, people should have the ability to monetize that and build on top of it. So if I'm an ISV (independent software vendor), I should be able to take the technology that I've licensed, build something on top of it, and sell it.

I do that with GPLed software now and have done for years. So have many other people.

If I'm a reseller or distributor of this technology, I should have a way that I can build and monetize things around that. I think that's what helps you build a very vibrant ecosystem. It also allows you in some ways to protect the intellectual property in different ways.

The GPL already allows this - and my "intellectual property" (whatever that means) is already protected by copyright law.

So this ability to patent your technology and have some level of protection against it, and in the course be able to build on top of that and innovate on top of that, is exciting.

Wait, so it's about patents now? Perhaps you can show me some genuine innovation in software that has been patented by Microsoft? You can't? Oh.


So what kind of innovation are you doing in your area for Microsoft?
Taylor: There are things we're excited about, and there are things that are just the basics. We spend close to $6.8 billion in research and development; it really comes in a variety of areas.

One area is just some fit-and-finish, and taking basic simple processes and doing it better. We have a feature called Configure Your Server Wizard, which allows you to go in and choose a server role so you can take a file server and (rebuild it as a) media server. That takes four to five clicks of a GUI (graphic user interface)

Reconfiguring a server using the mouse? Goodness me, what will they think of next!

Taylor: You have to understand why we have security problems today. In some ways, it's because a lot more things are connected today than they

Microsoft using open source code at the same time they are attempting to outlaw open source is hypocritical.

It's hypocritical only if you ignore the facts, which are that MS (and quite a few other companies) don't have a problem with BSD-type licences; their objections are specifically against the GPL

Furthermore, they violated the terms (if not the spirit) of the BSD license by not attributing the original copyright holders in their advertisements.

And can you prove this, or is this more FUD? To help you, are you aware that the advertising clause has been removed from the BSD licence since 1999?

No no no no no! That's the best part about publishing the source (under a GPL/BSD/MIT license) (imho)! Any random person can submit improvements, start maintaining their own version or whatever. If you're too embarrassed (don't be), you could publish in under a pseudonym or something. All you have to do to publish it is put it up on a website and say, "here it is, and here's the license (preferably GPL, BSD or MIT) you have to abide by." Just put a comment at the top of each source file saying "this is distributed under such-and-such license" and give a URL to the license, put in the whole license in the case of MIT or BSD (they're short) or put the license in its own text file.

Heck, you could even put up a tip jar link asking for donations so you can devote time to improving it, if people so desire. Sourceforge could even provide the webspace.

No no no no no! That's the best part about publishing the source (under a GPL/BSD/MIT license) (imho)! Any random person can submit improvements, start maintaining their own version or whatever. If you're too embarrassed (don't be), you could publish in under a pseudonym or something. All you have to do to publish it is put it up on a website and say, "here it is, and here's the license (preferably GPL, BSD or MIT) you have to abide by." Just put a comment at the top of each source file saying "this is distributed under such-and-such license" and give a URL to the license, put in the whole license in the case of MIT or BSD (they're short) or put the license in its own text file.

Heck, you could even put up a tip jar link asking for donations so you can devote time to improving it, if people so desire. Sourceforge could even provide the webspace.

No no no no no! That's the best part about publishing the source (under a GPL/BSD/MIT license) (imho)! Any random person can submit improvements, start maintaining their own version or whatever. If you're too embarrassed (don't be), you could publish in under a pseudonym or something. All you have to do to publish it is put it up on a website and say, "here it is, and here's the license (preferably GPL, BSD or MIT) you have to abide by." Just put a comment at the top of each source file saying "this is distributed under such-and-such license" and give a URL to the license, put in the whole license in the case of MIT or BSD (they're short) or put the license in its own text file.

Heck, you could even put up a tip jar link asking for donations so you can devote time to improving it, if people so desire. Sourceforge could even provide the webspace.

A prudent approach, in my opinion, is to assume that you aren't allowed to dual-license contributions if you're the original author

You're entirely right that a lot of licenses should be really MPL-like, definitely not the GPL. This just shows the ignorance regarding the licenses. Law firms, ahoy!
What I meant was that dual-licensing is happening all over! Small projects wanna do it. Large projects do it. MySQL does it. AFAIK, the only big projects that are carefull are OO.org and the FSF. They demmand that you fill a paper form and snail-mail it giving up on your copyright.
I agree that that the prudent approach is that of not assuming you can dual-license, but a lot of people are assuming the contrary, either due to unfairness or ignorance (the hype and noise around GNU, Linux and the GPL).
People need to be conscious about what they're getting into if they contribute to a project. Is it serious? Or are they going to dual-license it and just say "thanks very much for your code", or simply turn it closed-source once they think it's good enough?
My point was that the BSD license levels the playing field for everybody. Either that or the LGPL. Projects like JBoss use the LGPL because they want the reciprocity that it provides. However, the FSF actively plays against the the LGPL and they renamed it to "Lesser GPL." This license is adequate for libraries, though.
I guess we can assume from this discussion that there are a lot more subtleties to licensing than people assume. Knee-jerk reactions defending the GPL just won't cut it.
I prefer the simple, time honoured, tributary to the hacker spirit, court-tested, pro free-software/pro-proprietary approach (the +/+ approach) - the BSD License The other licenses aren't as flexible, or as simple to work with, or as tested.

I agree, but I'll take this chance to point out...

FOSS claims that commercial, "proprietary" software inhibits collaboration in favor of competition, whereas open-source promotes collaboration. The fact of FOSS is that competition is rampant. QT vs GTK, Mono vs. Gnu.NET, etc. etc. These programmers who work for free want THEIR product out there for prestige. Collaboration within projects exist of course, but that's true for Windows as well. Developers of Windows work together just like developers of GTK. But GTK and QT compete just like Windows and Unix competes. Why can't open-source programmers get off their prestigeous high-horses and start working TOGETHER rather than competing??

Answer 1: Because with no money to work for, open-source programmers work for prestige. Take that away, and you lose development help.

Answer 2: These obligating and non-free "open source licenses" are stuck onto projects, and the only way to get around them is to duplicate the project with another license. If you need a project, but it's already been created as GPL, and you need a X11 license, you have to start over, and collaboration will be strictly forbidden! Call that free, will ya?! So until we all consolidate on one license (MIT X11, please, since it's a truly free license), there will always be a lack of collaboration, and multiplicity of competing projects.

Lucent Public License 1.0
Lucent Public License 1.02

Turns out it used to be a different license - and anyone who obtained it under the original license can redistribute it under that. Assuming that license suits you better, perhaps you could see if you can find anyone who can put it up under that, if you care enough?