opensource.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? by arkanes · 2005-02-07 08:58 · Score: 1 · on Trolltech to Extend Dual-License to Qt/Windows

You didn't produce Open Source software, which they then used. You produced a work for hire (or maybe you just sold your copyright after the fact). Look here for the OSI definition of Open Source.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what you did, mind - it's normal and the way that much software is produced. But it's not Open Source.

Re:RMS? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-06 15:56 · Score: 0 · on Debian Project Nominations Opened

RMS plays an important part in the free software world, but he would not be suited to a role such as leading Debian. Leadership of such a project requires compromise, and RMS freely admits that he is not going to compromise his Free Software ideals (and he is right not to).

Neither is Debian. There are The Debian Free Software Guidelines. (BTW, please read them and then read the OSI's novel open source definition and compare them, I urge you.)

That's easy. by ulib · 2005-02-06 06:08 · Score: 1 · on Where Does NetBSD Fit In?

"If so, why don't we see BSD as popular as linux?"

That's pretty obvious: because the GPL is very favourable to large companies specialized in hardware/assistance (IBM, HP, etc), since it gives them the chance to compete on what they do best and undercut software companies.
( An interesting link )

"BSD fans tell you all the time that BSD license is better for getting businesses and large corporations behind the product."

I really don't think "BSD fans" tell it "all the time", because it would be wrong (unless you restrict that to *software* companies).

What BSD advocates might be telling "all the time" is that the BSD license is more free than the GPL, since it comes with fewer restrictions; that it's much shorter and it avoids legalese, in order to keep lawyers & law issues out of your way; and most of all, that the BSD license reflects an actual academic spirit, unencumbered by any political junk that has hardly anything to do with computer science.

The only point in favor of the GPL is that it's contributing to make the Microsoft monopoly end sooner - and that's actually good.
For the rest, the GPL is just a political manifesto - a *communist* manifesto, to be precise, since its declared purpose is to put an end to private property as far as software is concerned.

"BSD license may be good for business, but it isn't as good for the community, and the users."

Of course it depends on what users you're talking about. For those users who are also professional programmers, the BSD license is obviously better, since it doesn't force you to disclose *your own* code whether you want it or not, like the GPL does.

--
Requiem for the FUD

That's easy. by ulib · 2005-02-06 06:08 · Score: 1 · on Where Does NetBSD Fit In?

"If so, why don't we see BSD as popular as linux?"

That's pretty obvious: because the GPL is very favourable to large companies specialized in hardware/assistance (IBM, HP, etc), since it gives them the chance to compete on what they do best and undercut software companies.
( An interesting link )

"BSD fans tell you all the time that BSD license is better for getting businesses and large corporations behind the product."

I really don't think "BSD fans" tell it "all the time", because it would be wrong (unless you restrict that to *software* companies).

What BSD advocates might be telling "all the time" is that the BSD license is more free than the GPL, since it comes with fewer restrictions; that it's much shorter and it avoids legalese, in order to keep lawyers & law issues out of your way; and most of all, that the BSD license reflects an actual academic spirit, unencumbered by any political junk that has hardly anything to do with computer science.

The only point in favor of the GPL is that it's contributing to make the Microsoft monopoly end sooner - and that's actually good.
For the rest, the GPL is just a political manifesto - a *communist* manifesto, to be precise, since its declared purpose is to put an end to private property as far as software is concerned.

"BSD license may be good for business, but it isn't as good for the community, and the users."

Of course it depends on what users you're talking about. For those users who are also professional programmers, the BSD license is obviously better, since it doesn't force you to disclose *your own* code whether you want it or not, like the GPL does.

--
Requiem for the FUD

Open Source vs. Free Software by Jonner · 2005-02-02 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful · on Open Source is Not a Career Path

I think that Linus is really trying to say that he really agrees more with the Free Software Foundation's GNU Philosophy more than the Open Source Initiative's, though he continues to use the term "Open Source." This is where some of the confusion comes from.

I think the OSI has effected great positive change in making business aware of the benefits of Free/Open Source software, but I think they were pretty arrogant and short-sighted to try to 'dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software"'. The idea that freedom is important for its own sake may be confrontational to a lot of businessmen, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I think a lot of conflict could be avoided if RMS would admit that business cases are important for Free Software and ESR would admit that freedom of Open Source software is important in its own right.

Re:Stumping for irony. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-02 12:29 · Score: 0 · on ESR steps down from OSI

Obviously you've gotten this idea from somewhere -- that open source is not free software. Could you explain where you got it from?

Well, I got the idea from Here, where the OSI decided to create a different definition than any of the Free Software definitions, including both the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) upon which the OSI definition was derived from and the FSF's Free Software Definition

If the weren't different, the OSI wouldn't be making up different definitions, would they?

Re:Stumping for irony. by squiggleslash · 2005-02-02 07:56 · Score: 1 · on ESR steps down from OSI

I'm not sure what definition of "Hostile" you're using here. He clearly disagrees with the Open Source movement on a small number of issues that, while low in number, are serious to him. He doesn't have to actively support you in that, and he can be "hostile" in that he has every right to express disagreements with things he doesn't agree with.

You've said several times you disagree with RMS's description of the Open Source movement, but, honestly, to the bulk of us out there, it looks to us like the OSI is doing exactly what RMS claims you're doing. Namely you're ignoring the argument for freedom itself, and instead concentrating on how a particular programming methodology can help businesses, one that happens to involve Free software. For RMS, and for many others, the issue isn't "Can Mozilla/Linux/OpenOffice.org be a better browser/kernel/office suite if we open up development of them to anyone who wants to be involved", it's "What right do you have, simply though giving me software, to dictate what I can do with it, how can you justify locking up my data into some proprietary format and not give me the means to unlock that, how can you give me hardware and then restrict my use of it by giving me software that you refuse to provide me with the means to modify?" and above all "What right do you have to prevent me from helping others?"

The OSI specifically rejected these arguments. It didn't do so because its members necessarily disagree with them, but the OSI was formed to make a case to businesses for Free Software, and in doing so, it ignored everything outside of some obscure set of arguments specific only to the task at hand.

History of the OSI
The prehistory of the Open Source Initiative includes the entire history of Unix, Internet free software, and the hacker culture.
The "open source" label itself came out of a strategy session held on February 3rd 1998 in Palo Alto, California. The people present included Todd Anderson, Chris Peterson (of the Foresight Institute), John "maddog" Hall and Larry Augustin (both of Linux International), Sam Ockman (of the Silicon Valley Linux User's Group), and Eric Raymond.
We were reacting to Netscape's announcement that it planned to give away the source of its browser. One of us (Raymond) had been invited out by Netscape to help them plan the release and followon actions. We realized that the Netscape announcement had created a precious window of time within which we might finally be able to get the corporate world to listen to what we have to teach about the superiority of an open development process.
We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.

This has been quoted to you before. Your response was to laugh it off and offer to respond to the person quoting it in email. Read it again:

We realized that the Netscape announcement had created a precious window of time within which we might finally be able to get the corporate world to listen to what we have to teach about the superiority of an open development process.
We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape.

Now, you've been accusing RMS of misrepresenting you. Your own website says the exact same thing as RMS.

RMS is not an open source advocate. He feels fairly strongly that Open Source is not what he's about. If businesses benefit from open development models that rely upon Free Software, then that's just great, but this isn't where he's coming fro

OK, bear in mind by ArbiterOne · 2005-02-02 01:35 · Score: 2, Informative · on Secret Kazaa Documents Revealed in Court

Bear in mind that these aren't the Halloween Documents. The article, for those who refuse to RTFA, is basically a summary of the documents- not the documents themselves. They don't say "we're selling a product which we know is poisoning people's computers", that's sort of implied across the board. But they still don't come right out and say it.

Re:OSI approval required for open-source licenses? by oxygene2k2 · 2005-02-01 12:04 · Score: 1 · on ESR steps down from OSI

so where does the CDDL (or MPL, where CDDL comes from) not match the criteria that OSI, the FSF and debian apply to licenses?

(essentially to be a "free software" license, such as GPL, MPL or CDDL, you have to match the same rules for all three entities, it's just that there are different reasons behind those rules)

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

Re:Stumping for irony. by jbn-o · 2005-02-01 10:09 · Score: 2, Informative · on ESR steps down from OSI

According to the front page of the OSI website: (emphasis theirs)

"The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.

We in the open source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see the source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits.

Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world."

The Open Source Initiative started the open source movement and defines the term "open source". That is a development methodology aimed chiefly at businesses. I fail to see how my wording or RMS' views of the open source philosophy fail to describe what's going on.

It's also disappointing to see that the new head of the OSI takes so quickly to name-calling and casting aspersions.

Re:OSI and its approval of licenses? by squiggleslash · 2005-02-01 08:47 · Score: 1 · on ESR steps down from OSI

No they didn't.

They think they did, but they didn't and were using a term that, while vaguely defined, was certainly in common use before 1998.

For examples of "open source" in use where clearly something resembling free software was intended here are some examples:

This guy wants an open source ray tracer.
These guys are making an operating system's code "open-source", back in 1996. Wonder where they are now, these plucky open source pioneers. (Hmmm, is this one scary or what?)
Here's an early variant, from 1997. This guy declares his project "Freeware with open source", meaning, essentially, that it's Free software but not really sure how to word it. The OSI's definition is essentially a slightly broader one than the one this guy's using.

Indeed, the last one's interesting because it's an example of what most of the references to "open source", in the context of software, meant before ESR et al stuck their oars in. It was a common phrase meaning "We include the source so you can modify your programs." It was coopted and refined a little, but it would be a massive exaggeration for the OSI to claim it "coined the term".

Interestingly it appears on a whole bunch of spook/militia postings too, related to intelligence models. Makes you wonder...

"OSI Certified" by tepples · 2005-02-01 07:34 · Score: 3, Informative · on ESR steps down from OSI

If you entity don't set financial, technical or legal standards, it's probably not really needed.

Open Source Initiative does in fact set legal standards. It maintains a definition of what constitutes an open source license and approves licenses for use with its OSI CERTIFIED branding program.

Re:Don't fall for the trap by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · 2005-02-01 03:52 · Score: 1 · on Solaris 10 Released

The license being used by Solaris 10 is just the Mozilla license modified to provide additional protection against patents.

Technically this is false; the differences between CDDL and MPL are either cosmetic-only (Sun's position), or could interact with Sun's patent swap with Microsoft in subtle ways that give third-party developers fewer rights than Sun (recent concerns at Groklaw, which have not been resolved). In any case, MPL contains at least as much protection against patents as CDDL.

More important, though, mozilla.org code is tri-licensed under the GPL and LGPL as well as the MPL. You can obtain it under whichever license you wish. That means the code can be combined with GPL code (obtain under GPL); combined with e.g. CDDL'd Solaris code under the MPL-compatible CDDL (obtain under MPL); or contained in a library linked to by code of any license, including proprietary licenses (obtain under LGPL).

Solaris 10, of course, is licensed under CDDL only.

In other words Solaris 10 is just as Open Source as FireFox.

Solaris 10 is just as Open Source as Firefox, because "Open Source" is a well-defined term that they both meet. However, Solaris 10 is nowhere near as useful to the F/OSS community as Firefox code or any mozilla.org code.

More to the point, the Mozilla Foundation's licensing policy is to make their code as open and available to reuse as possible without allowing it to be completely co-opted ala a BSD-style license. Sun's policy is just the opposite. On paper the MPL/CDDL is a great license, probably better than GPL in this patent-encumbered age. But in reality almost the entire ecosystem of quality F/OSS operating system code--both kernel and utilities--is GPL'd. Sun's choice of license was clearly motivated by a desire to remain license-incompatible with that huge body of code, seemingly in a quixotic attempt to draw resources from Linux and split the Open Source community in two.

Having said that, it was still a very positive thing to have open sourced Solaris, and an Open but GPL-incompatible license is about the best anyone could have expected from Sun given their precarious competitive position. (Lock-in and familiarity with Solaris are the only reasons anyone continues to buy their pathetically underpowered hardware.)

But the difference between Sun and Mozilla is anything but trivial.

Re:By your definition by MirthScout · 2005-02-01 03:50 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Office Formats Not Really Being Opened

Actually the GPL itself is Open. Anyone can use the GPL any time they want.

But the subject at hand is file formats to which the GPL is not very aplicable. In my opinion IP law is not aplicable to file formats (in which case all file formats are Open) but my opinion doesn't count for much unless a significant majority of us enforce it against those that pervert our IP laws. (I won't hold my breath.)

If you wish to change the subject and talk about Open in the context of software then the generally agreed upon definition is the Open Source one.

Patent protection w00t! by Spy+der+Mann · 2005-01-31 11:26 · Score: 1 · on A Compact Guide To F/OSS Licensing

From the link:
http://www.croftsoft.com/library/tutorials/opensou rce/

AFL - Academic Free License (replaces Apache, BSD, and MIT)

Mutual 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 if You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source software that is licensed under any license containing this "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software.

It's also covered in the "Open Software License
v. 1.1" (akin to GPL).

The "Common Public License Version 1.0" deals a lot with patents, but I couldn't understand a thing :( Fortunately, the tutorial explains:

The CPL is an interesting choice. It requires that the licensee share and distribute any modifications to the licensed Open Source code. On the other hand, it is non-viral in that does not require that a larger derivative work that incorporates this modified Open Source code also be distributed as Open Source. In these respects, it is like the LGPL. In my opinion, the main flaw with the CPL is that it may be modified at any time by IBM and all source code released under earlier versions of the CPL would be affected by the change. For this reason, I have abandoned the CPL in favor of the AFL.

Totally clueless - again. by ulib · 2005-01-29 20:56 · Score: 1 · on Why I Love The GPL

Stephen Samuel wrote the following bullshit:
The only place that Microsoft has to include your copyright and the BSD license is in the source code, and nobody outside of Microsoft (and people who sign an NDA) are likely to see that source code.

Again, that's ridiculously false.
Microsoft has to include "your copyright and the BSD license" in every *binary* distribution as well. It's clearly written in the BSD license: "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 asked you to get a clue. Now I must think that you actually enjoy making an ass of yourself.

--
Requiem for the FUD

Re:RMS's choice by joeljkp · 2005-01-28 02:42 · Score: 1 · on Ubuntu Linux Live CD Release

That's because the AFPL isn't an approved open source license.

You don't see the FSF releasing a GPL-licensed Mozilla, do you? The Mozilla license is an actual open-source license.

Re:Inquiry by ulib · 2005-01-27 22:07 · Score: 1 · on Bridging India's Digital Divide With Linux

Actually it's becuase if I develop something under the BSD license then any company can come and take what I have done and repackage it...and sell it without any credit to me what so ever.

Totally false.
Everybody including any BSD licensed code MUST give proper credits to the author, and include the license of that code (in this case, BSD) in any distribution of his work.
Please have a look at the BSD license before making a fool of yourself - provided you weren't deliberately spreading FUD, of course.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

Re:is your friggin car open source? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 13:28 · Score: 0 · on Video Formats for non-Windows Users?

Actually, for the most part, my car is open source when allowing somewhat for the fact that my car is almost 100% hardware and open source is about software.

Working down the list:
1) I can sell or give away my car in whole or in parts.
2. I can obtain documentation from the manufacturer or even third parties.
3. I can modify my car as I see fit and still call it a car.
4. The manufacturer can talk about genuine parts but I can use parts from third parties.
5. Pretty much anyone who can own things can own a car.
6. The manufacurer can't limit what I can use my car for.
7. These options transfer with ownership of the car.
8. These options in so far as they are applicable, relate to any part of the car individually.
9. These options do not necessarily have to apply to anything thrown in to a deal for a car.
10. PROFIT!!!

(I don't know how "10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral" can be made applicable).

Re:The real deal by k98sven · 2005-01-24 09:15 · Score: 2, Informative · on Sun Chief Calls Out IBM, Demands Compatibility

Java is not open source any more than Microsoft's "shared source" is open source.

Neither java's new license or their old license qualify as Open Source under the OSI definition.

The license Sun is now using for Solaris does qualify under the OSI definition, and this has also been verified by the OSI.

Despite previous ramblings from Mr Schwartz claiming that Java is open source, it's pretty obvious from their different licenses that Sun knows what 'open source' really means.

So why don't you?

Re:The real deal by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-24 07:11 · Score: 0 · on Sun Chief Calls Out IBM, Demands Compatibility

That is NOT an Open Source license, and, worse, not GPL compatable.

GPL and MP3 by robla · 2005-01-24 06:00 · Score: 1 · on Real Pays For Legal MP3 Playback On Linux

To elaborate on the problem that we're trying to solve here, take a look at this post about GPL and MP3.

Real is solving this problem by licensing MP3 to the community under the RPSL (which is OSI certified), and paying for an MP3 license. It's not a perfect solution (we would like to include it in the GPL'd code), but it's better than not having MP3 playback.

I suppose many Linux users who are used to compiling and installing their own software will find this a yawner, since there's plenty of grey market software out there. However, companies that want to make a business distributing Linux-based products should really find this good news.

Rob Lanphier
Development Support Manager
RealNetworks

Re:This is bad news, not good news by bamberg · 2005-01-23 12:49 · Score: 1 · on Massachusetts Adopting 'Open Format' Software

Correct. If the Web address is "openoffice.org," the name of the company is "Open Office." If the company that makes Open Office wants to deliberately confuse people by choosing a name that baffles, that's their choice. But it doesn't make it a name. It's still just a Web address.

If "OpenOffice.org" is what the project calls its software, that's the name. Period. No one is confused by this except you. And to say it's not a name just because it's also the same as the web address is just stupid.

No, I'm saying that freedom and "open source" software are not related.

And you're wrong. I'm certain that you know this, but just in case you don't, this site might help you. You're just trying to minimize the importance of having the freedom to modify and distribute software.

Boiling it down, this sentence reads, "You think your opinion is valid." Yes, that's correct. I do.

No. You're trying to ignore my point. Your one supposed experience with one piece of open source software does not provide a basis to judge the open source methodology. You're entitled to your opinion but the rest of us certainly have the option to tell you it's stupid.

I don't know what that expression means.

Of course you do. I can't imagine that anyone would believe such an obvious and transparent lie.

No, I used one example to illustrate a larger point. This seems to have confused a significant number of people, to my never-ending surprise. I just sort of assumed that people were capable of reading and understanding written English. Silly me.

No, you provided one data point and tried to say that it indicated a trend. This is obviously not valid reasoning. We understand your post perfectly.

The point of my comment was to share my opinion. I didn't realize when I did it that there are people out there who believe that an opinion can be wrong.

You presented your opinion as though it were fact and that anyone who disagreed was an idiot. If you're surprised by the response you got then maybe you're not ready for online forums.

Re:free as in "free beer"? by Arioch+of+Chaos · 2005-01-23 06:20 · Score: 1 · on Ciphire, A Transparent, Easy PGP Alternative

Yes, it's free beer only and not "OpenSource" as advertised in the post. This does obviously not fulfil the requirements in the FSFs Free Software Definition or the OSIs Open Source Definition.

Re:How is it free or open source? by art6217 · 2005-01-23 04:55 · Score: 1 · on Ciphire, A Transparent, Easy PGP Alternative

This is exactly tha page with that citation. Your comment seems to be disinformative in a way similar to that of the story text. Perhaps you'd need to read the Open Source Definition.

Re:Ok, flame away... by petrus4 · 2005-01-23 02:20 · Score: 1 · on Slackware 10.1 Beta And Pat's Health

As far as the GPL is concerned (Linux's primary license, more or less) it so happens that RMS agrees with you. Check this out, if you're interested...it's an article he's written about that very thing.
And of course, this is only something that comes up as a potential question in people's minds with the GPL anyway...if you're talking about software that uses the BSD or virtually any other FOSS license, of which there are several, it generally doesn't need to be mentioned. It seems to be primarily the GPL with which people have the misconception that free ("libre" - liberated or open source) HAS to also mean free as in beer as well. This of course was actually the core reason why ESR started using the term "open source", although I personally probably prefer the term "liberated software" myself, and am not sure why anybody else hasn't come up with that...because it implies freedom in terms of rules, but doesn't necessarily in terms of price.

Unfortunately the fact that one encounters misinformed GPL zealots from time to time (who help spread the misconception about the GPL in particular) doesn't help matters.

Re:Are you a software company? by Daniel+Vallstrom · 2005-01-22 11:27 · Score: 1 · on Custom Software vs. COTS Products

Very few OSS licenses (do any?) require you to release changes back unless you are distributing your changed apps to others.

RPL, reciprocal public license, requires you to release back even if you only distibute within the company. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php/

Actually that's the main idea behind RPL, that you are not allowed to use (e.g. link) RPLed programs within a company without making your work availabe. In other respects RPL is roughly like GPL.

So if you don't want e.g. Microsoft or Intel to build on your FOSS and distribute it within the company without giving something back you should consider using RPL.

Re:It's time to do a GPL version of this by Kidbro · 2005-01-21 13:54 · Score: 1 · on Exeem Open Beta Released

Elaborate, please. BitTorrent itself is released under the MIT license. Suprnova was just data - no code - so licensing it under the GPL wouldn't have made much sense (license what, by the way?)

I really don't understand what your suggested solution is. It's not even clear what problem it's a solution for.

Re:BSD? by MartinB · 2005-01-10 23:01 · Score: 1 · on IBM Opens Their Patent Portfolio to Open Source

Most likely, this means that it will only end up in GPL projects, as a BSD-License can lead to some very shaky grey-area with this aspect of the source licensing.

From the PDF:

All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their website [link added to original text] as of 01/11/2005 are Open Source Software licenses for the purpose of this pledge..