Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: opensource.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to opensource.org.

Comments · 1,973

  1. Re:BSD? by MartinB · · 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..

    Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):

  2. Re:BSD? by MartinB · · 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..

    Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):

  3. Re:BSD? by MartinB · · 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..

    Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):

  4. Re:BSD? by MartinB · · 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..

    Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):

  5. Re:BSD? by MartinB · · 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..

    Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):

  6. Re:BSD? by MartinB · · 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..

    Specifically, this means (unless someone else gets certified later today):

  7. Sri Lanka answered, too! by AnuradhaRatnaweera · · Score: 1 · on IT and Natural Disasters

    Several organizations of the Sri Lankan IT industry, along with the Lanka Software Foundation and Lanka Linux User Group have worked around the clock for the last couple of weeks to create a set of applications to manage the Tsunami recovery program (URL not given to avoid being slashdotted). We made them Free and Open Source from the beginning, and most of the code are already in SourceForge.

  8. Re:Follow-up questions on the above by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 3, Informative · on Open Source Project Management for Beginners?
    I've been actively following open source game (it's been linked to from Slashdot a couple times) development for awhile and might be able to provide you with some useful pointers.
    • You could get a Linux maintainer, or you could attempt to use the compile features at Slashdot, they have many different types of boxes and operating systems for you to choose from. If you want to support all Linux versions, definitely see about getting a helpful maintainer to keep the source working and be able to compile something that works for a majority of the distributions out there.
    • SourceForge is the largest community, but BerliOS is nice as well as it has SVN, CVS, and most of the other nice features that SourceForge has. Admittedly, the community is much smaller so you'll receive less traffic if you go there (but that didn't stop me from signing up my project).
    • Make an AUTHORS file in the root of the source code and give them credit for what they did. You could also have a credits option in your game and list contributors.
    • Someone else mentioned the meanings of the different terms so I won't go into that. You can however, have as much leeway as you wish when it comes to numbering conventions. Just be consistant!
    • Wikis can be useful for OS projects as BZFlag will show you.
    • If you have legal questions, first look through the licenses at the Open Source Initiative to see what they have to offer. It's a good idea to use your common sense for most things, but if you have really pressing issues you might be able to ask the folks at the FSF (they have some very brilliant minds at work there), or you may have to find and befriend a lawyer. ;-)
    Hopefully that helps you out a little bit, development is one of those things that you can run yourself. Just don't abandon your work after a few months. I hate when people make a page on SourceForge and then don't go anywhere with it. It wastes my time and their resources when I go through trying to find the latest game projects.
  9. Re:Open Source or Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on U.S. Army Research Lab Opens BRL-CAD Source

    I'm the original AC, btw; am away from home and have somehow managed to forget my Slashdot password.

    The primary difference between Free Software and Open Source Software is not in the software they describe, but in the mindset they imply in the person using that term to describe software.

    Certainly; it isn't incorrect to describe BRL-CAD as open source. All I said was that it would be more appropriate because:
    a) All Free Software (as defined by the FSF) seems to be Open Source according to the OSI (I just scanned the OSI site again, but I could be wrong here.) If this is true, then it's reasonable to use the more specific name
    b) Given that we do not know too much about the mindset of the people who decided to release it as F/OSS, the fact that they chose the GPL, LGPL, GFDL and BSD licenses rather than OSI's Open Source License, for example, is evidence for the belief that perhaps they intended it to be Free rather than Open Source Software.

    Thank you for pointing out the the difference between Free and Open Source, though. We tend to focus too much on differences and indulge in pointless flamewars.

  10. Concurrency Revolution is off to a slow start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
    I've started the Atomic Ptr Plus project to collect some of lock-free stuff I've already done. There's nothing there yet, it's still in the planning and organization stage. Figuring out what opensource license to apply is a major pain. There's no real instructions on how to fill out th e boilerplate and how that works when derivative copies are made is a real pain. OSI isn't a big help here. I'm leaning towards the Historical License which pretty much lets you do anything with the software.

    The win32 stuff you see in the list might get dropped even though it's already written since it's not clear I will have long term resources to support it. Something about the 100's of dollars required to replace all your win32 software when moving to the current win32 or win64 platform.

  11. Channelling Tux ;) by petrus4 · · Score: 1 · on Gates Nose-Dives at CES

    I think you know, deep in your heart, deep in the stillness of your own mind, that you're going down, Bill. The people have stated their intentions regarding you, and that statement has not been in your favour. You've probably heard the saying before...Stop struggling, and it won't hurt anywhere near as much.

    You refer to us as Communists. My response to that is that while Communism was *not* a historical inevitability as Marx claimed, the annihilation of Microsoft *is*. You can pretend to be confident...you can wrap your oratory in the usual spin and doublespeak...but we know better. There has been enough evidence to the contrary of both a public and private nature in recent years for us to know better. We smell your fear, and we revel in it. Fear is an entirely appropriate emotional response for you to be experiencing at this time. The event which many in the computing world have long anticipated in earnest, Microsoft's impending burial, and my vengeance, is close at hand, and well you know it.

  12. Re:but what about the programmers? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1 · on The Care and Feeding of Open Source Software

    What analogy? The point is that those who get the software, also get the source code, and that they are allowed to do whatever they want with it, just like with open-source software.

    I can make money off the software because it is custom software. If the customer wanted some commodity software (perhaps a CMS), then they could get it for free or for a price I wouldn't be willing to develop it for. If I wrote custom accounting systems instead of websites (which I will likely do this year), the same would be true.

  13. Re:You're asking the wrong questions by timmyv · · Score: 2, Informative · on Vendor Neutral File Formats?
    I guess I neglected to mention that the "corporation" I work for is a state government. Therefore Open Standards are essential to allow for:
    The types of files we are talking about are essentially textual documents, spreadsheets, databases, etc. 2 of the 3 OOo provides, but I have a pretty good idea of how our user base would respond if we upped and replaced all their MS Office installations with Open Office, or for that matter how our DBAs would respond if we moved entirely to MySQL or MaxDB without a strong policy or incentives.
  14. Re:Same old, same old... by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Compares Windows And Linux

    Windows even goes so far as to call it's program Shared Source

    Who's Windows?
    Besides, there are tons of different names for "open source" licenses.

    I imagine there are even provisions in there that forbid you from working on competing open source projects such as Linux.

    There isn't.

    Windows is only Open Source once you pony up some dough, or have significant buying power in order to make Microsoft feel it's worth it. Joe Schmoe developer isn't going to be seeing Windows' source any time soon

    Microsoft MVPs (who are just your regular Joe Schmoe) have the option to access Windows' source code.

  15. This is just nuts by Mmm+coffee · · Score: 5, Informative · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source
    The comments on this thread (A lot of which have been modded all the way up to +5) goes a long way to show how little even the average slashdotter understands what Free Software and Open Source really are.

    Free Software - This is software which is Free, as in speech. As in the wind. As in thought. This software gives the users four basic freedoms -
    • Freedom 0) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
    • Freedom 1) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
    • Freedom 2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
    • Freedom 3) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    Source: The Free Software Definition. Also I would like to note that not only is "free as in beer" not a part of the Free Software philosophies, but the FSF has sold copies of it's sotware since day one! In the beginning of the movement RMS used to sell tapes of emacs for $300 to put a roof over his head. Today the FSF will sell a rather pricey distro, hand compiled for you by the boys at the FSF. This is _NOT_ about free as in beer.

    The Free Software movement is about Freedom to use my programs without restrictions (read your EULA, folks), Freedom to give copies of the program(s) to others (sorry, can't give you a copy of photoshop even if you're going to use it only once), Freedom to modify the programs (This program is close to what we need but does not suit our businesses' needs. I'll have my IT boys fix it.), and the Freedom to create a community working together to create great software. More information can be found on GNU's philosophy pages.

    Open Source - While the Open Source definition mirrors the Free Software definition in many ways, the two are far from the same in theory and are almost totally different in practice. Real world experience shows that the Open Source movment is far more interested in bug checking than freedom - insert the "many eyes" statement here. This is more development model than philosophy, while FS focuses on the "why", OS focuses on the "how". This is what gets Free Software fans in arms - we worry more about what the software will let us do than about how the software was made. An excellent explination of this is "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again", written by Open Source co-founder and Debian guru Bruce Perens (/. profile).

    Since this post is getting very wordy, I'll close with something I've noticed over the past year or so - When a lot of slashdotters talk about Open Source they're really talking about the freedoms that the Free Software philosophies have given them. Look around at the stories and comments and keep in mind what both movments really are, you'll be quite amazed.

    (Please forgive my terse presentation - this can be a very deep subject and I wanted to keep it as brief as possible.)
  16. Difference between Free and Open Source: by Hobart · · Score: 1 · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source

    See which licenses are on the FSF's list of Non-Free Software Licenses, but are listed on OSI's list of Approved Licenses.

    For example, the Reciprocal Public License is Open Source but not Free. This is a useful distinction, in argument to Mr. Bedell's article.

  17. Difference between Free and Open Source: by Hobart · · Score: 1 · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source

    See which licenses are on the FSF's list of Non-Free Software Licenses, but are listed on OSI's list of Approved Licenses.

    For example, the Reciprocal Public License is Open Source but not Free. This is a useful distinction, in argument to Mr. Bedell's article.

  18. Re:Free? by wine · · Score: 2, Informative · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source
    In case anyone is wondering about an example of software that is "open source," but not "free," a good example would be Andromeda, (...) However, you are not given permission to redistribute the code, as you are with Free software.

    You're way off. If it is true what you are saying, Andromeda is not open source either. Open Source software has a Open Source License which adheres to the Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative which specificaly requires redistribution.

  19. Re:Free? by wine · · Score: 2, Informative · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source
    In case anyone is wondering about an example of software that is "open source," but not "free," a good example would be Andromeda, (...) However, you are not given permission to redistribute the code, as you are with Free software.

    You're way off. If it is true what you are saying, Andromeda is not open source either. Open Source software has a Open Source License which adheres to the Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative which specificaly requires redistribution.

  20. Re:Free? by wine · · Score: 2, Informative · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source
    In case anyone is wondering about an example of software that is "open source," but not "free," a good example would be Andromeda, (...) However, you are not given permission to redistribute the code, as you are with Free software.

    You're way off. If it is true what you are saying, Andromeda is not open source either. Open Source software has a Open Source License which adheres to the Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative which specificaly requires redistribution.

  21. Re:I dont agree with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source

    Uh, please show me a free software license that does not meet the OSI's Open Source Definition.

  22. One thing that always irked me... by myrdred · · Score: 1 · on The Semantics of Free Software vs. Open Source

    One thing that always irked me about the "official" definition of "open source" found here is that they put a bunch of restrictions of what "open source" is.

    In other words, contrary to what most people think, something to which the code is available and can be modified legally for your own personal needs is not necessarily "open source" by the definiton.

    For example, CircleMud - a popular free MUD engine to which the code is available - is not "open source" by the official definition, even though anyone can grab the code and use it for their needs, as long as they don't make a profit from it (this is in the license). Such a clause prohibits the software from being "open source" by the official definiton, even if the source code is open - and there is no other appropriate name for such software! This is what bothers me the most - we can't just call it "open source" we must say "the code is available for download and use blah blah blah" instead of having a convenient name.

    Come on, if the source code is open for anyone to download and modify, it should be "open source" - since that's what the name describes! Why attach some arbitrary hidden restrictions to the term, that are not easily apparent from the words themselves?

  23. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1 · on Latest Version of iPodLinux Reviewed

    According to OSI, the ASPL is an open source license. And from the very document you linked to, the FSF "considers the APSL to be a free software license". It's just not GPL-compatible.

    Not an Apple fanboy by any stretch, but let's be fair.

  24. Re:Free Software vs. Freeware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Free Windows Software Without Spyware/Adware
    "Free Software is not necessarily Open Software"
    Free Software is always open. I don't capitalize the letters because it looks better, but because it's a specific term that happens to have a precise definition.

    Nice troll :) Of course you realize that free software is NOT always Open Source Software. I don't capitalize the letters (in Open Source) because it looks better, but because it's a specific term that happens to have a precise definition.

    Some history of the definition Open Source

    The Open Source Definition is derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Bruce Perens composed the original draft; it was refined using suggestions of the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution developers in e-mail conference during most of June, 1997. They then voted to approve it as Debian's publicly stated policy. It was revised somewhat and Debian-specific references were removed at the origination of the Open Source Initiative in February 1998.

    Of course, in reality the FSF and the OSI are two competing organizations - one a Massichusetts bases nonprofit, one a California based nonprofit - and like most industry competitors, much of their success depends on their marketing of intellectual property like "Free *" and "Open *".

    FOSS is a highly redundant term.

    Uh, not really. How else would you describe a license that meets both the FSF 's criteria for free and is a OSI approved license

    In short.

    • Most Open Source Software is Free Software
    • Almost all Free Software is Open Source Software.
    • Some free software is Free Software
    • Some open source software is Open Source Software
    • All GPL software is both Open Source and Free.
  25. Re:Free Software vs. Freeware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Free Windows Software Without Spyware/Adware
    "Free Software is not necessarily Open Software"
    Free Software is always open. I don't capitalize the letters because it looks better, but because it's a specific term that happens to have a precise definition.

    Nice troll :) Of course you realize that free software is NOT always Open Source Software. I don't capitalize the letters (in Open Source) because it looks better, but because it's a specific term that happens to have a precise definition.

    Some history of the definition Open Source

    The Open Source Definition is derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Bruce Perens composed the original draft; it was refined using suggestions of the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution developers in e-mail conference during most of June, 1997. They then voted to approve it as Debian's publicly stated policy. It was revised somewhat and Debian-specific references were removed at the origination of the Open Source Initiative in February 1998.

    Of course, in reality the FSF and the OSI are two competing organizations - one a Massichusetts bases nonprofit, one a California based nonprofit - and like most industry competitors, much of their success depends on their marketing of intellectual property like "Free *" and "Open *".

    FOSS is a highly redundant term.

    Uh, not really. How else would you describe a license that meets both the FSF 's criteria for free and is a OSI approved license

    In short.

    • Most Open Source Software is Free Software
    • Almost all Free Software is Open Source Software.
    • Some free software is Free Software
    • Some open source software is Open Source Software
    • All GPL software is both Open Source and Free.
  26. Re:Give credit where credit is due. by dondelelcaro · · Score: 1 · on Revising the GPL
    all the OSI did was write their rules for license acceptance such that they could place the GPL on a list of approved licenses
    Surprisingly enough, they didn't even write the rules themselves. The original OSD is actually straight from Debian's Free Software Guidelines, although now it is modified.
  27. compare licenses by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 1 · on Revising the GPL

    opensource.org/licenses/ (thought the new GPL doesn't seem to be up there yet). personally i like The MIT License. the shorter the better ;)

  28. compare licenses by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 1 · on Revising the GPL

    opensource.org/licenses/ (thought the new GPL doesn't seem to be up there yet). personally i like The MIT License. the shorter the better ;)

  29. The RPL Already Solves the Fundamental Problem by Baldrson · · Score: 1, Insightful · on Revising the GPL
    The GPL favors huge organizations over small organizations. If you are a Hewlett-Packard or Defense Department, you can modify and internally distribute code to your heart's content without ever reciprocating the open source community.

    The Reciprocal Public License doesn't let the bureaucrats get away with that.

    I don't know why Stallman is such a sucker for huge bureaucracies. Maybe he is a red.

  30. Fundamental problem won't be addressed by Ed+Burnette · · Score: 2, Informative · on Revising the GPL

    GPL intentionally drives a wedge between the open and closed source communities. However it doesn't have to be that way. If your main purpose is to encourage open source, including making the source to any modifications available, then EPL already provides that. Unlike GPL, it does not put restrictions on the other code and licences with which it can be used.

  31. On Obfuscation and Open Source by cookie_cutter · · Score: 4, Informative · on On the Ethics of a Code Split?
    Deliberate obfuscation of released source is a violation of the GPL, because obfuscated source is not the actual source; it is not what would be used for further development.

    This is laid out in the open source definition, of which the GPL fits, which explicitly forbids obfuscated source.

    Whether and how this applies to changelogs is another matter, since those could be interpreted as not being part of the source.

    However, if the changelog is important for understanding the source, then I would interpret the GPL as regarding the changelog as part of the source code for the project, and therefore subject to the redistribution clause of the GPL.

  32. Re:So... that's it? by 9-bits.tk · · Score: 1 · on Patrick Volkerding Back to Work

    Oh. So. If somebody was to bleed him. It would be a red Open source logo? How the heck did Eric Raymond get in there, then?

  33. Re:Can we please put this to bed: Hackers vs. Crac by m4gg0tbr41n · · Score: 1 · on Hacker Sentenced To Longest US Sentence Yet

    OK kids.
    Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
    I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

    I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
    (I can't hear you.)

    Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

    Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

    For your homework assignment please read the following:
    http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

    Must read before posting on Slashdot
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

    Background info
    http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

  34. Re:Another "Innovation" from Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on A .Net CPU

    open != free as in beer

    Wrong.

  35. What about the BeOS sourcecode then? by motown · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Palm OS To Run On Linux

    Hmmm...

    If I recall correctly, PalmSource bought the BeOS sourcecode after it had failed in the marketplace.

    Everyone expected PalmSource to use the BeOS code as a basis to built another mobile OS on.

    Now that PalmSource has announced that they would be running future versions of PalmOS on top of Linux, that previous plan has apparently been axed.

    Well, in that case I do have a great proposal for PalmSource if they if they are prepared to give something back to the Open Source community: by releasing the BeOS sourcecode under the GPL or any another acceptable OSI-compliant license.

    I'll tell you this, mwk88: if PalmSource were to release the BeOS sourcecode, they would create a tremendous amount of goodwill throughout the entire OSS/FS community, even among many of us that do't use BeOS. And with that, you'd be attracting many talented volunteers who are prepared to help customize and optimize Linux for PalmOS. I can't think of any other use that PalmSource would have for BeOS, now that they're switching to a Linux-based platform.

    Please do this, PalmSource. If you do, I'm sure you'll become the next cool open-source friendly company idolized on Slashdot (sorry, Novell ;) ).

  36. Re:Put ReactOS on it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Photos and Commentary On AMD's PIC

    Win CE is open source to the OEM's

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

  37. Squatting by ajs318 · · Score: 3, Informative · on Apple Threatens iTunes.co.uk Owner

    The definition of squatting {in the traditional sense} is occupying a place that someone else has vacated. Under English law, the lions share of the rights associated with land and buildings belong with the occupier, as distinct from the owner -- a throwback to feudal times no doubt, but a valid protection measure against excesses of authority by absentee landlords. "An Englishman's Home is his Castle" -- and it's your home if you live there, regardless who owns the building or the land on which it stands. {As an aside, when I was buying my house, things were moving a bit slowly and I was technically homeless for one night. I spent that night in my new place. Legally, I was a squatter; but the only person in the world who could have got myself evicted without a court order, was me!}

    The practice of "cybersquatting" originally referred to re-registering expired domain names which used to have belonged to businesses, and linking them to sites with which the former registrant probably would not wish to be associated, in the hope that the former registrant will pay you not to do it {as opposed to just launching a DoS against your new host}.

    Cohen registered the itunes.co.uk site before Apple even trademarked "iTunes" in the UK; so it's arguable that Apple are in the wrong ..... Cohen could even possibly have their trademark invalidated! However, if I were Cohen, and the judge ruled in my favour and against Apple, I'd settle for a printout of the iTunes source code ..... with this document stapled to it .....

    PS. I visited the itunes.co.uk site and it has an intrusive registration with a drop-down box for "gender" -- but only gives the options "male" and "female". Where's "other" when you need it?!

  38. Re:Why should they? by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 1 · on Sun Submits New License for Open Source Approval
    The implication here is that there's something bad about them not wanting to GPL their source.

    Is there? Claire Giordano of Sun's CDDL team said , in the submission, that it was of particular note that the license is not expected to be compatible with the GPL, and you think she meant to imply there was something wrong with that? Doesn't seem too likely. If she thinks it's noteworthy then is it really unreasonable for other to comment on it too?

    I'm assuming it won't allow anyone to resell the code.

    From the open source definition:

    1. Free Redistribution

    The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

    If their license doesn't even meet the first characteristic of the open source definition then it'd be a bit silly to submit it to the OSI for approval, now wouldn't it?
  39. Re:Why should they? by zerblat · · Score: 2, Informative · on Sun Submits New License for Open Source Approval

    Nope. There is no real difference between Open Source Software and Free Software. The Open Source Definition is basically a fork of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Sure, the OSS and FS people may have different views of why software should be free, and sometimes the OSI, FSF, Debian and other people differ on whether a particular license is free enough, but "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" are (more or less) synonymous.

  40. Twelve Step TrustABLE IT : VLSBs in VDNZs From TBA by NZheretic · · Score: 0 · on Red Hat, Novell To Package Xen
    Twelve Step TrustABLE IT : VLSBs in VDNZs From TBA

    Twelve Step TrustABLE IT:
    Virtualised Linux Standard Base (VLSB)
    in Virtual Demilitarized Network Zones (VDNZ)
    from Trusted Build Agents (TBA)

    Back in August 11, 1998, Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil and Josh Cohen released a memorandum titled Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM?, in which they predicted that Linux would become ubiquitous as a services platform. However, the title of the paper could be even more prophetic.

    Consider the following.

    [1] It is well known that Linux is quite portable, in fact only NETBSD comes close to the number of hardware platforms supported.

    [2] What is less well known is that the Linux kernel has even been ported to run on itself, as client for a virtual Monitor platform, and even to run virtualised on other operating systems including Win2K and XP.

    [3] Other operating systems, such as BSD and Sun's Solaris can also use a compatbility layer to run applications compiled for Linux directly, without the need for virtualisation.

    [4]The Linux Standard Base Mission Statement is to

    To develop and promote a

    set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux.

    [5] The above standard also defines a generic subset of the standards for each hardware platform as a source level application interface. In fact for an application to be certified for the LSB it must be tested on two of the plaforms supported by the LSB, one chosen at random by the testing body. Following the standard, it's not that difficult a job to write portable C and C++ code : Write once, compile for each platfom.

    [6] The GNU Compiler Collection's future GCC 4.0 Release Series now divides the task of compiling into two stages based around Static Single Assignment trees. It should be possible to use the new GCC front ends to compile each language into a SSA tree that represents the common generic subset of the Linux Standard Base: [5].The resulting SSA tree for a build could be dumped into files, analogous to Java's JVM intermediate format, and then complied to native code for the target platform: Write once, run everywhere.

    Be it open or closed source, every binary or script you execute represents a risk. It is possible to introduce hostile code at any point along the build chain, before the point where the binary is checksummed and the result digitally signed.

    [7] It is possible to use constraints built into any Linux or Unix like operating system to isolate and restrict what a binary executable has access to or can do. Even without employing SELinux's manditory access controls or chroot/jail'ed environments, it is possible to run a process under a different user identity and group identity. Unix servers have used this te

  41. The victory of FUD over Facts. by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Insightful · on Are Blogs the Future of Journalism?

    Unfortunately, the 2004 USA Election has been a victory of FUD over Facts.

    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts"- Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

    The mainstream forth estate news organizations, on both sides, have utterly failed to hold either Democrats or Republicans accountable for claims that diverge widely from the known facts. In cases where journalists have made a consistent argument, the news organization has allowed that position to be "shouted down" by political camp followers repeating the same lies over and over again though the same outlet. In those same replies, there was very rarely comments by the news organization when known facts obviously contradicted the opinion. Many news organizations seem unwilling to publicly chastise either party for continuing to avoid addressing serious questions when the facts do not concur. The result has been an outright failure of the concept of journalistic ethics.

    Some alternative sources, be they partisan or bipartisan organizations, individuals, websites, documentaries, forums or the blogosphere, have done a better job at holding both sides accountable. Sadly, even the most popular alternative source reaches a small fraction of the audience covered by the mainstream media. However, to even that small fraction, those same sources have utterly failed to present an overall palatable, concise and coherent position to the opposing or undecided viewers.

    The resulting output from both mainstream and alternative sources has only polarized each sides opinion of each other, further dividing the nation.

    Democracy is effective only when a large majority of voters are capable of making an informed choice. In my opinion, the majority of voters, despite who they voted for, were badly served by those organizations who claim they are responsible for keeping the public informed. It's not as if the same could not be said for past elections in any country, but this election cycle the "Whopper" mud slinging has been so much worse than any election since the introduction of television.

    What does this mean for the tech industry?

    In a lot of ways, both sides campaigns are mirrored by Microsoft's unabated campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ( commonly referred to in the information technology sector by the acronym FUD ). Microsoft's advocates probably consider the use of the same strategy by both Democrats and Republicans a green light to continue to spread FUD, despite the evidence which contradicts the claims, including Microsoft's own internal research. Any forum attached to an article that even hints at Linux being used on the desktop results in a similar barrage of FUD that is familiar in form to that spouted by the political camp followers. Microsoft's advocates claim the same thing happens whenever Microsoft's record of security is mentioned.

    Whether choosing a political or consumer platform, it is possible to make an informed choice when the mainstream political or technical media performs its role to certain ethical standards.

    From the International Federation of Journalists:

    DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES ON THE CONDUCT OF JOURNALISTS

    Adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux on 25-28 April 1954 and amended by

  42. No news by Uukrul · · Score: 3, Funny · on Green Hills Software Decides Linux Isn't So Bad

    IBM, the big blue company, decided a long time ago that Open Source isn't so bad.
    Sun, the UltraSPARC Processors maker, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.
    Intel, the 8086 Processor maker, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.
    Munich, Germany's third-largest city, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.

    "Microsoft decides Open Source isn't so bad" will be news.

  43. Re:I don't buy this at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful · on Will Open Source Solaris Kill Linux?
    Most people here are idiots. Sun has always said their license will be OSI compliant. There is a wide range of OSI compliant licenses of which the GPL is but one. Is the BSD license not open source? How about the Mozilla license? Do you want to go before the Apache team and tell them their license isn't open source? How about you flame the IBM-backed Eclipse project about their license? That would be a quick conversation.

    Redhat != linux, GPL != Open Source....blah blah blah.

  44. "Open Software License" fixes that by u1048576 · · Score: 2, Interesting · on GPL Revision Coming Soon

    you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody

    That's exactly why I opted for the Open Software License over GPL for my latest web app. I want it to stay free (speech-wise). Nobody should be able to hide their modifications if used in public.

    With the Open Software License they say basically the same things as in GPL, but a published webapp counts as "distribution".

    IANAL, so could anyone enlighten us about any possible compatibility problems between the OSL and the GPL?

  45. BSD and MIT licenses anyone? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Flamebait · on GPL Revision Coming Soon

    GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use. The GPL doesn't keep commercial entities from suing you; it keeps them from adding to your code without giving it back.

    Let's look at the SCO argument. In basic terms, IBM altered SCO UNIX to become AIX, and so SCO owns all alterations IBM did to AIX. In basic terms, if you alter GPL code, you must distribute your source, meaning you must give your work to the public because you based it on somebody else's work.

    In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses (roughly equivalent) give you copyright, but allow anyone else to use the code, change the code, and protect their changes. In effect, these are roughly equivalent to GPL to the originator of the data; but leave the rights of any third party to their intellectual property in their hands if they choose to augment your software with it.

    I believe that Open Source Software would be much easier for the industry to accept (and sodomize) if we stopped trying to armtwist vendors into releasing their own IP and instead let them base their solutions off ours without fear of having their hard work taken away from them "For the Common Good" (Marxism).

    To prevent the OSS community from getting shafted by vendors blatantly stealing their work and hush-hushing the original contributors, we could reverse the original (later removed) non-advertisement clause of the BSD license, mirrored on OpenSource.com. The original clause is shown below.

    * Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

    Perhaps a suitable replacement would run along the lines of the below.

    * The name of the <ORGANIZATION> or the names of its contributors may optionally be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software.

    *The name of the <ORGANIZATION> must be displayed in an easily accessible portion of the software, such as with Version information; on its packaging; and on any on-demand information medium about the product such as in a product magazine or on the product Web site.

    This would explicitly allow vendors to endorse their products by advertising that they were derived from an OSS product or from work done by a specific person in the community. It would also require the vendor to indicate where he got the code from in the software (Help:About or --version are good places), on the packaging, and on the Web site.

    As for patent clauses, I can't comment on exact wording; however, since in this new license we are not requiring the vendor to release his new source, it would be fair to lay down the following conditions about patents:

    • Vendors may include patented technology in derivative works if and only if they are licensed to use such patents
    • Vendors may release source code to derivative works using patents they own the rights to; however, by doing so, they are granting an irrevocable, universal license allowing anyone to freely use those patents released in source form

    I believe this license would be most fair to vendors of derivative works and to open source developers at the same time. Perhaps someone should get one together and have a lawyer look over it; I'll pass it by the FSF. The title "BSDM" (BSD/Moser) would be appropriate, since it's my idea. :)

    Disclaimer: IANAL

  46. Re:if you don't have it...HOW TO FAKE IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful · on Art Tips For Programmers?

    >> #3- Look at other designs, and borrow, borrow,
    >> borrow. Very few people actually create something
    >> original. Just about everything has been done
    >> before, so just borrow away.
    >
    > STEAL, uh, i mean "homage" any image (OBEY ALL
    > PERTINENT COPYRIGHT RULES, AND DON'T "HOMAGE" FROM
    > MAJOR SITES THAT ARE KNOWN TO EMPLOY LOTS OF
    > LAWYERS!!!!!!!!!)

    This kind of attitude really pisses me off (not to mention that it's really, really stupid to suggest "borrowing" or to "homage"). Stealing art is basically the same as stealing code. You must _ALWAYS_ ask for permission. As an artist I can assure you that if I found your companies using my artwork and passing it on as your own then you might be facing a lawsuit. I would hate to resort to legal actions but if you steal my stuff, and haven't been licensed to use it (e.g. artistic license), you'd better be prepared for a bare-knuckle fight.

    I'm telling you this for your own good. Just because it's there doesn't mean you can take it and use it as you see fit because you see, like code, it does belong to someone unless explicitly stated to be public domain. After all, like parent stated -- art is subject to Copyright laws.

    If you asked me for permission and acknowledged me as the artist, however, I would probably be more than happy to accomodate you and grant you permission to use it. It's a matter of pride - please keep that in mind.

    Thanks alot, now I feel dirty for having to spell this out in such a impolite fashion.

  47. Re:Not a beleiver. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Solaris 10 Released, Updated & Free (Like Speech)
    Sun has made no indication that this would be released under a real Free/Open source license. Sun's past history with this sort of thing has been, shall we say... dismal. Oh, they'll let us see the source. Sure as shit. Probably a clause that makes you "dirty" if you compile it, and sure as all hell it won't allow you to redistribute it, or patches to it. (like Sun's other "child" -- Java)

    This is not true. I work for Sun, though I do not speak for Sun (call the PR department, please, if you want that). That said, Sun has stated publicly more than once that we are committed to delivering the sources under a license approved by OSI. It's true that the specific license has not been selected, but whatever it is will be one that is OSI-approved as "Open Source."

    To clarify further, this will not be SCSL or SISL or any other "community source" style license laden with extreme restrictions. See OSI's license page for more information about existing OSI-approved licenses and the criteria licenses must meet to be approved. These are the familiar licenses used by x.org, Apache, perl, Linux, BSD, KDE, GNOME, and more; all meet the open source definition. The Solaris source release will be licensed under terms compatible with this definition.

  48. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1 · on Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World?
    The current BSD license does not require retention of the original copyright/credit notices.

    Yes it does. You're thinking of the advertising clause, which was deleted some time ago.

  49. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 5, Informative · on Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World?

    No. The term "Open Source" is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative and/or Software in the Public Interest, and it has a very specific meaning.

  50. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 5, Informative · on Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World?

    No. The term "Open Source" is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative and/or Software in the Public Interest, and it has a very specific meaning.