Slashdot Mirror

The commercial Wine forks are able to use restricted licenses because Wine used to be licensed under a BSD-type license. Though Wine is now licensed solely under the GNU LGPL, the commercial versions used a BSD licensed version as their code base.
The Mozilla license (MPL) requires availability and redistributability of source code (BSD licenses do not). It seems legal, though, with a program under the LGPL or MPL, to create and not provide source for add-ons which can run with unmodified binaries (or modified binaries with source code available).

Speaking from the point of view of someone less deeply engrossed in the geek culture, I'd like to say that these licenses confuse the hell out of me.

GPL? BSD? I mean, to me it means very little. Then again, it may well be important, but it'd be nice if we could see some sort of umbrella license that made it all clear to normal people. Free, open source, software should have a clear explanation of the terms in simple language, this way it'd be more likely that people would read them, instead of just clicking "I Agree". All these acronyms confuse lots of people!

"Normal people" can very easily read the licenses in question on the OSI site or one of about a bazillion other sites, as well as lots and lots of commentary. These licenses are, in fact, much simpler than all the garbage Microsoft et al. throw at you above the "I Agree" button -- and even better, with open source programs, in the overwhelming majority of cases, you don't have to click an "I Agree" button to use the software! As a rule of thumb: if you write or distribute software, you should pay attention to the differences between the licenses; if all you do is use it, it's really not important.

And this is really not a geek culture issue; it's a business law issue, about an aspect of that field which happens to be mostly the concern of geeks.

Finally, if we use acronyms a lot, it's because typing out the full names gets tedious. If you want to engage in the discussion in a meaningful way (which, given your user name, I doubt ...) then you should spend the requisite, I don't know, ten minutes or so to learn the terminology.

And OSI has an official standard that doesn't demand GPL compatibility. I sympathize with their opposition to license proliferation (although in the absence of proliferation, why would licenses need to be certified?), but it seems inappropriate to deny certification to licenses that meet their published standards.

The OSI has a list of "approved" licenses here, but it's literally just a list (no explanation of the differences or analysis of their implications), and I get the impression the OSI is regretting approving so many of them, given most of them are incompatable with one another (some of them can be incompatable with themselves, depending on the precise circumstances!)

The term "open source" is equally ambiguous: it sounds as if all it means is you get to look at the code, not modify it. And many authors in the press have defined it this way.

Free software is quite simple to clarify: "free speech, not free beer." Anyone who hears that will get it. Look how short and simple the Free Software definition is; just four bullet points. Compare that to the Open Source definition. It may not make as good a buzzword, but "free software" ultimately does the best job getting the point across.

The Open Source Definition (which was sortof modeled after the GPL) clearly states:

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

( Open Source Definition )

This sounds to me as you are allowed in the license to ask a (reasonable ofcourse, or you'd rule out most parts of the world...) fee from everyone, or none. But not just organisations, of any kind.

Thus the GPLv3 would not be an Open Source license. Somehow, I don't quite think the FSF would come up with something not OSI approvable.

This is why people should be embraching the BSD License, where "Free" means Free.

Yeah, because no one opens source code under licenses other than the GPL.

Seriously, if something like this happens, it is simply going to make more people say that people like Jonathan Schwartz and Bill Gates were right all along not just about the GPL (few people make distinctions about which version they are speaking of when it comes to the GPL) but also in regards to RMS.

I haven't written -much- under the GPL, but what I have I never intended to force the user to be required to distribute -any- change so long as they never polluted the world with bastardized ... err ... modified versions of my code. Yes, contributing back is nice, sure, but I know what the real world is like and I would much prefer people be able to use what I wrote than have to reinvent the wheel just because they were under restrictions not to redistribute the changes. So long as no one distributes their modifications under a closed license or binary-only form, I don't give a hoot how they use it internally, because I know that if the proposed changes were active MANY wouldn't be able to use it at all.

Instead of modifying the "GPL" for this purpose, create the sGPL (strict GPL). I'm sure it will be useful for people, but it inherently changes the GPL too much.

No foundations that I know of, but there is an initiative. Of course OSI promotes open source, and the FSF promotes Free Software and they do have disagreements on some levels...

If the customer is not free to redistribute it is not open source.

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

If the customer is not free to redistribute it is not opensource.

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

Try reading point 4 of the Open Source Definition.

But it's true, linus didn't consider the nature of what he was using and got burned.

Right.

Seriously, there are many reasons FOR the GPL. I am sick of people who aren't political having an allergic reaction to it, while you might not value the reasons for the GPL there *ARE* perfectly legitimate and powerful reasons for believing in it.

But why are you talking about GPL here ?? The version control doesn't have to be GPL, as long as it's open source (as defined by the OSI) there's no problem. The developer can choose to release their software as GPL or something else, but as a user a BSD license give you as much rights as the GPL (actually it's more).
And I think the main reason why Richard Stallman was not happy with bk was because it was not free, not because it's not GPL.

Don't forget that opensource software != free software.

Wrong in one. The term "Open Source Software" has always been a synonym for "Free Software", merely with a different emphasis. It was coined for the very purpose of being a marketing term for Free Software. To quote the Open Source Initiative FAQ:

The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software.

The set of all open-source software programs is exactly the same as the set of all free-software programs. If a program is free software, it is open source; if it is open source, it is free software. GCC is free software; it is also therefore open source. Vim is open source; it is also therefore free software. Qmail and Windows are neither free software nor open source.

To put it in seventh-grade English-class terms, the difference is connotation rather than denotation: the term "free software" emphasizes the right of software users to learn from and improve software, whereas the term "open source software" has been promoted to emphasize the practical advantages of this development model.

(Both terms lend themselves to unfortunate misconceptions, however: the term "free software" gets mixed up with binary-only "freeware", while the term "open-source software" gets confused with software for which the source is available but you're not allowed to modify or redistribute it, such as qmail or Microsoft's "Shared Source". In the former case, the confusion is accidental; in the latter case, it has been deliberately promoted by losers such as Microsoft trying to confuse the public.)

1. I can get the code for FireFox
2. The code is OSI Certified Open Source Software
3. In fact it is even MPL/GPL/LGPL triple licensed
4. While I can get the code for Java...
5. Sun Java sure *ain't* Open, nor Free

That's what Open Source is: developing software in an open manner because of a belief that software developed this way is technologically better than closed-source software.

1. Free Redistribution

2. Source Code

3. Derived Works

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

7. Distribution of License

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

This is much much more than "From a practical standpoint, it is sufficient that the tool or language meets the needs of the developers and is available on the required platforms, and does not appear to be a patent or other legal liability."

That's what Open Source is: developing software in an open manner because of a belief that software developed this way is technologically better than closed-source software.

1. Free Redistribution

2. Source Code

3. Derived Works

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

7. Distribution of License

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

This is much much more than "From a practical standpoint, it is sufficient that the tool or language meets the needs of the developers and is available on the required platforms, and does not appear to be a patent or other legal liability."

That has nothing to do with the article.

Furthermore, software patents would not allow only MS, but any company (and technically individual) to gain "thousands of monopolies".

For this reason it is large companies that are the primary beneficiaries of software patents (why do you think they are the ones lobbying for them, while SMEs lobby against?).

The software patent issue is far, far larger and more important than some "M$ versus teh world!" issue; please don't denigrate it to such.

I'm all for giving Microsoft a good kick in the teeth at any opportunity, but how exactly does this benefit the user? If, as I suspect, this is only the version which is _sold_ in the UK, then it will affect very few people. Most people buy a PC with Windows XP preinstalled, I doubt any of these will be version "N". Which retailers are going to want to sell a PC which won't play media out of the box? Sales people will easily talk a lot of people coming in just to buy a copy of XP to get a new machine instead with the "full" version of XP on, which can only increase the collusion between Microsoft and retailers. If the European Union is serious about its concern regarding monopolistic practices, they should immediately implement the same policy as the government of Peru.

Open Source is, from a legal point of view, practically identical to Free Software. The group of people who created the OSI intended the term be used to "sell" Free Software as a concept to businesses by extolling the virtues of a community development process enabled by licenses that gave developers free use of the code created.

While Open Source, in practice, is less about freedom and more about methodologies (sometimes to the detriment of freedom, unlike the FSF, the OSI doesn't urge developers to avoid licenses that are technically free but actually create genuine practical problems), you most certainly are granted more than just the right to see the code.

Umm, no, actually it is you who seems to be confused.

Here's a summary (from the page linked above):

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 - must be allowed.
2. Source Code - must be available.
3. Derived Works - must allow redistribution under the same license.
4. ...

• Apple patented stacks, years ago, thus creating intellectual property.
• Apple purchased intellectual property from Xerox: "However, a significant change occurred in 1979 when Xerox bought a large chunk of Apple stock. In return for being allowed this stock purchase, Xerox allowed some of their research ideas to be used in designing an office computer."
• Apple complies with the BSD license agreement, by freely distributing its improvements to the source, and including the license in the source it distributes. I'm no expert, but I imagine they'd face legal action if they were not complying with the license. Thus they use and improve the property therein in good faith, which, I thought was the whole point of open source, right?

The point is, it is only stealing if you take it from someone against their will. Apple, as far as I can tell, does things the proper way, whereas Microsoft often does not.

The only change I'd like to see is " this code cannot be used by Microsoft or SCO or its subsidiaries, or employees in any fasion ". Or better "this code cannot be used by GW Bush to kill innocent people in any country under any circumstances whatsoever" or something to that effect.

Then the GPL would no longer be an Open Source license, or even a Free Software license.

See items 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"), or the Free Software Definition ("you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere .")

Thank you, you are correct, Copyright law is probably the more improtant concept here. However Both need to be in full effect.

As described in The Open Software License version 2.1

1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following:
to reproduce the Original Work in copies; to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work;
to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License; to perform the Original Work publicly; and to display the Original Work publicly.

2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, to make, use, sell and offer for sale the Original Work and Derivative Works.

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.

... or to whine about BitKeeper.

I tried out an evaluation version of Perl2Exe, and found that it worked nicely. However, since then I've switched to pp for converting scripts into executables. It's available under the Artistic License.

On the other hand, by Stallman's definition, Free Software is "free as in speech", copyleft, etc. At the same time, by OSI definition, Open Source is something more than just software for which you can see the code.

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

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

In relation to the spirit of this article.

In an industry where companies distort facts, thwart community efforts, it can be hard to know who to trust and what to believe. I think it is times like these when we the Open Source/Linux community can compare itself most closely with other changes and booms in society's history.

Think of all the doomsayers who like to say "The sky is falling" around times of economic uncertainty and social change. In the end, the ones who take the risks during those times, usually come out ahead.

I consider the Open Source community to be the "risk takers" per say of our time. I don't think that we'll end up on the wrong side of the fence when all is said and done. But if we do, so be it! At least we tried to make something better of the world. Something that gives rather than takes.

I don't think we should spend so much time reading articles like this that give us the attitude that the sky is falling. We should spend more time celebrating Linux and Open Source and leading the way to what will come next. We need to be leaders not Doomsayers.

If you want to read a good article on why open source is the right way to do things, read this Peruvian Congressman's letter to the manager of Microsoft in Peru. Really great read.

Software that has non-commercial-only restrictions is not free software by anyone's definition.

It could be just coincidence, but Burst.com is also a company held by Baystar Capital. These are the people responsible for $50 million in funding for the SCO legal case against IBM over Linux. But then you would have to believe that when Microsoft helped Baystar and SCO meet was a coincidence. And don't forget when Microsoft bought $12 million in SCO licenses when they didn't need them.

And who can forget when Sun bought SCO licenses too and then less than a year later, Microsoft and Sun were best friends and settled their lawsuits with each other.

Maybe some of this stuff is a coincidence and then again maybe none of it is. I find it hard to believe that all of it is a coincidence though.

> This is not instability or trouble, it is part of the evolutionary process of open software...

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with the Mozilla development process. What is happening in the Mozilla camp is just a healthy debate over the best approach to moving forward, i.e. in a manner that is efficient, and avoids duplication of effort.

Contrary to the recent articles, the Mozilla development process has been extremely successful, judging by the technical prowess and popularity of the various Mozilla products, namely the Mozilla Suite, Thunderbird, and, especially, Firefox.

In fact, it is this very success that has prompted the appearance of these articles. The articles are, as the original poster suggested, part of a smear campaign, aimed at slowing down the adoption of Firefox and other Mozilla products.

And there is little doubt that the FUD campaign is coming from Microsoft.

Why? Because the growing success of Firefox represents a huge threat to Microsoft's future plans.

As described in the Halloween Document, Microsoft's strategy for stopping Linux and Open Source involves "decommoditizing" Internet protocols, and thus making access to the Internet dependent on Windows. A big part of that strategy involves pushing the use of .Net, with its Microsoft-proprietary protocols, for the development of Internet services.

But Microsoft strategy requires the widespread use of Internet Explorer, both as a means of spreading .Net to clients, and of convincing businesses that .Net will allow them to reach more users than other alternatives (Java, JavaScript, and so on).

Thus, if enough Internet users are using Firefox, instead of IE, it will thwart Microsoft's plans for controlling the Internet.

Given a large percentage of non-IE users, even if .Net is a commercial success, it won't give Microsoft what they want, namely, a monopoly on Internet development and protocols. Businesses would still have to deal with the Firefox, and other non-IE users, and thus might choose more cross-platform tools (Java, etc.). Perhaps worst of all, from Microsoft's perspective, businesses might choose to develop their web-enabled intranets using Javascript and Mozilla XUL, which are built into Firefox.

I'd feel sorry for Microsoft, if they weren't so evil. Meanwhile, people should remember to question any article which might tend to benefit Microsoft, given that company's history of lying, and manipulating the press.

Microsoft invested money in Baystar and that money went to SCO to pay for the lawsuits. It was on slashdot ages ago.

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.ht ml

fwiw, it's basically the jabber license with a couple of the restrictions lifted.

HTH,

petard

The author draws a parallel to the earlier UNIX wars and the current variety of Linux distributions, and then claims that because of this, Microsoft are laughing all the way to the bank. I think he's wrong, and here's why.

1) Although it's true that there are a lot of Linux distributions, in practice at most five of them would be used by 99.5% of the Linux using population. Of those five, (Debian, Red Hat, SUSE, Mandrake, and a tie between Gentoo and Slack) three are RPM-based, which to a degree limits variation in their overall style, and also, many of the more popular "smaller" distributions are themselves derivatives of Debian or Slackware. Because of that, it's possible in practical terms to pare the core number of most popular distributions down even further, to just two: Debian and Red Hat's offerings/RPM based derivatives.

2) I myself haven't seen any of the division he talks about in the commercial space. From everything I can see, in the corporate world Red Hat is the undisputed king, as much as it pains me to admit it. Corporations won't buy anything unless a contract to feed them, burp them, and change their nappies goes along with it...and for that, Red Hat and IBM are the two primary sources.

3) Microsoft are doing anything but laughing these days. The author needs to go here and learn about the attitude Microsoft have developed towards Linux on their own, and it's not one of bravado. The stench of fear coming from Redmond over the past two years ago in particular has been palpable...Ballmer has been trying to hide it, but he is fairly obviously terrified of the progress Linux has been making, and with good reason. If Microsoft are so confident that Linux isn't going anywhere, then why has Darth Bill been making flying visits to different places lately, including Australia? Why did Ballmer personally try and prevent Munich's conversion to Linux, if it wasn't significant? I also notice that mention of Longhorn was conspicuous in its absence from the article...this is understandable, as it would not have aided the author's argument.

4) The UNIX wars were not on their own responsible for Microsoft's success. They didn't help, sure...but before Linux UNIX would not have achieved mainstream relevance regardless of what happened. The reason why I can say that with complete confidence is because UNIX as an operating system/s was written with the assumption that the human being at the keyboard actually enjoyed using his or her brain, when the truth is that around 95% of human beings do not. The main reason why Windows took over the world where computing is concerned is because it was written with the assumption that whether the person using it was intelligent or not, the one thing most human beings despise doing more than anything else is engaging in intellectual effort. The *only* reason why Linux has come out of the closet now is because of the effort that has been made towards user-friendliness for it. In the 140 IQ crowd, the BSDs are still almost entirely non-mainstream.

That said, open source UNIX is the future, and I believe it could possibly define computer use for the next several hundred years, assuming humanity lasts that long. The reason why is that OSX and Linux are proof of concept that although usability was not an issue that UNIX's initial userbase cared about, it is not a hurdle that the operating system is unable to overcome.

Gates was lucky. At the birth of anything new there is chaos, and for a while a number of different competing lifeforms exist. Eventually however, natural selection kicks in and standardisation takes place, as is gradually occuring now. Gates was able to take advantage of the primordial soup phase, and I begin to suspect that in the furthest recesses of his own soul, he has the necessary level of awareness to know that, as much as he may not want to accept it on a conscious level. Microsoft are indeed a dinosaur, and their extinction, albeit a slow process, is already at hand.

Wow! That guy really put some thought into it. Some of the more interesting quotes from his letter:

On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.

So two arguments for using proprietary software contradict each other. Cool.

On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.

Yep. Make them back up their claims!

This letter by Dr. Edgar David Villenueva Nunez that the linked article links to is absolutely fantastic. I've never read such a good argument for open source outside of its founders. Nor have I read such a great and well thought out letter by a modern day politician. It makes me want to move to Peru.

I think that you all should take a moment to read through that so that you can remind yourself that open source is the "more correct" form of software development.

That's exactly why a Free bios is necessary. I am typing this up in a Free Software browser (Konqueror) in a Free Software window manager (KDE), which run on top of a Free Software graphical manager (X), which runs on top of a Free Software system (Gnu), which runs on top of a Free Software kernel (Linux), which is booted by a Free Software boot loader (Grub). All of this Free Software runs on top of a non-free BIOS.

This raises the question - Am I really Free? When a Free Software BIOS exists, you can make a safe bet that I'll be using it.

(P.S. I'd suggest against using the term Open Source to describe software which is made to protect the rights of the users. There is a huge difference between Free Software and Open Source - Namely OS completely avoids any real mention of software Freedom. You won't find any mention of the four freedoms on OSI's site. Indeed, the only real mention of software freedom is where they call it ideological tub-thumping. This is definitely a Free Software issue, not an Open Source issue.)

That's exactly why a Free bios is necessary. I am typing this up in a Free Software browser (Konqueror) in a Free Software window manager (KDE), which run on top of a Free Software graphical manager (X), which runs on top of a Free Software system (Gnu), which runs on top of a Free Software kernel (Linux), which is booted by a Free Software boot loader (Grub). All of this Free Software runs on top of a non-free BIOS.

This raises the question - Am I really Free? When a Free Software BIOS exists, you can make a safe bet that I'll be using it.

(P.S. I'd suggest against using the term Open Source to describe software which is made to protect the rights of the users. There is a huge difference between Free Software and Open Source - Namely OS completely avoids any real mention of software Freedom. You won't find any mention of the four freedoms on OSI's site. Indeed, the only real mention of software freedom is where they call it ideological tub-thumping. This is definitely a Free Software issue, not an Open Source issue.)

but its just believable without checking for why!!! I think thats the real point...

Does it sound like something MS would do?
Or is it just a mask for halloween again

go ahead and do a clean MS OS install and run anti-spyware on it. I know adaware will find spyware that does track what teh user does on teh internet and sends it back, eventually getting to MS, but thru alexia or whatever the spyware company is..

There is no boy yelling wolf here, for the whole town already knows about the wolf and that making up jokes about him is really rather harmless, if not just a way to help releave the wolf created stress.

But I can yell entrapment....can't I?

10) Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date You commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, against Licensor or any licensee alleging that the Original Work infringes a patent. This termination provision shall not apply for an action alleging patent infringement by combinations of the Original Work with other software or hardware.

So why not try to extend this rule to termination on ANY action against an author or contributor of the work, where the item at issue is part of the Open Source software product, including litigation due to the name of the original?

Without the specific restriction of the issue being PATENT infringement. Someone shouldn't be able to legally take open source stuff, sue to SHUT DOWN the original project, or try to supplant them in name, but then continue to use the product on the original license.

It's a huge Betrayal of trust, and it SHOULD result in termination of the evil company's rights, as a reasonable penalty, right?

What you describe is known as "source-available". Open source is a specific technical term that has a specific meaning.

The first one is strongly academic (making the source available with no strings attached, just requiring the user to give credits where they're due)

The zlib / libpng license is very much "BSD-like." You might want to actually read it before making incorrect assumptions that are based on another person's incorrect assumptions.
For the record, this is the full text of the license:

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.

The current version of the OSI FAQ avoids saying that specifically, but it is implied: http://opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php

The old version claimed that "Open Source" was a trademark, but they had to drop it: http://web.archive.org/web/19981201223102/www.open source.org/faq.html

This won't be easy - tearing people away from their, "but I need this clause" licenses.....

How about taking the 3 or so licenses as mentioned, but allowing each (or some) to have a number of options that could be opted for on a case by case basis? Rather than a one-size-fits-all, perhaps an aproach like the various Creative Commons licenses would be better for the entire community?

Find some common elements from a large number licenses from the "Approved" Open Source License Collection and make some of the most common language available as "plug-ins" to some sort of meta-license that encompasses a large cross-section of what's currently being used.

Rather than chooing a particular license just because it has some sort of attribution or distribution clause the author is interested in, bring consistency to the community but still allow individuals to apply special clauses to the documents that protect (or ensure the freedom of) their work.

Just an idea...

It's 'cause Asimow didn't listen to me and made his X11-style license instead. That, of course, would allow any fool^Wauthor to copy, modify, merge, and do a whole bevy of things with their work. Maybe now Cory GPLed it so Asimov can't get his code--uh, story--back. I do wonder why they don't cite sources these days after all the crap they give us in college...

Anyway, the question is not whether a criminal action has taken place or not here? Yes, there might be someone who broke the law by violating an NDA. The question is, whether or not Apple is justified to harrass the messenger? EFF seems to take an issue here because Apple's actions disrupt or threaten the operation of the site and its maintainers.

And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making.

Indeed... it is not the point you are making, but a point which you are conveniently avoiding, even though it is probably the most important point here: this is not a black and white issue. Should the site maintainer punished in any way (no one thinks that they will be thrown in jail - as I said, it's about interfering with the operation of the site) because they might use sources that might have violated a law? Wouldn't this set a bad precedent? It happened many times that a vital information reached the public via not exactly lawful sources. Did Apple suffer in any way because of this leakage btw? I don't think so. However, if it can force these journalists to reveal their sources, what kind of message would this send out? Remember the Halloween documents? Well, someone obviously has broken an NDA by leaking Microsoft's internal memo's. If Apple is right in pursuing these journalists, than Microsoft is right to use its legal muscle to force Eric Raymond to reveal his sources as well. That is why I agree with the EFF here,but it doesn't matter anyhow as long as the /. crowd is that eager to justify Apple's actions.

It becomes more and more ridiculous how predictable /. has become in treating Apple as the white cow of the industry, no matter how ridiculous or outright unjustifiable its actions may be - before using your mod points, just think of this: can you say with a straight face that if Microsoft was pursuing the same strategy against journalists you would try to justify its actions with the same fervor you do in Apple's case?

This is a great day for both free software and open source movements. Hopefully Omaha will serve us well as a great example to follow and soon other banks will jump on the bandwagon. I know that I am much more likely to give my money to people who choose their software intelligently and I am sure that I am not alone. GNU/Linux and *BSD variants are certainly the best bets in such an environment. In the name of the Slashdot community, kudos for Omaha! Another question is: what RDBMs are they using for their critical data? Isn't it time for The Industry to finally move from the legacy DB2, Sybase, Oracle and Interbase, to PostgresSQL? This seems like a logical step after converting to Linux. But one step at a time. Let's be patient and hopeful.

Shared source is not "open" so don't call it that.

Well, it's open as in open but it's not open as in Open.