Slashdot Mirror

I used to release all my stuff under the BSD license, but I've switched to MIT's. It's clearer, more succinct, and explicitly spells out that there is no implied warranty that the software is noninfringing. If you get sued by SCO for using my code, I'm not liable.

It really will save you a lot of headache. You won't be faced with the problem of some esoteric license that hasn't found OSI approval. It will also guarantee that you are A-OK with anything that is under the GPL (which will be a lot).

"Everybody uses it" isn't enough reason to choose the GPL, but it is hard to suggest anything better if you don't know your requirements.

It is a documented fact that Microsoft made plans to take over Internet (and other) protocols in order to stop Linux, Apache, and other Open Source software.

In the Halloween Document, Microsoft states:

"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."

This licensing ploy is just one of many steps that Microsoft has taken in order to achieve their goal of de-commoditizing the Internet.

Other steps include Microsoft's extended Kerberos protocols, Microsoft's patented Office XML protocols, Microsoft's secret/patented .Net authentication protocols, and so on.

As always, Microsoft is more akin to a crime syndicate, than to a legitimate business.

And of course, when yet another of MS' asinine patents is discussed, the shills come out of the woodwork bleating the corporate line "Microsoft is only interested in using their IP defensively!".

I completely fail to see how this can ever be used for anything but to harass competitors. Not surprising, since this strategic direction was already outlined in a 1998 memo.

So this ought to shut up the MS shills for awhile (unfortunately, there is a large divide between 'ought' and 'will').

A) It's the Mozilla Public License, not the GPL, and this clickthrough was a relatively recent addition to Firefox (and there was a thread of serious debate in Bugzilla about an earlier, far more restrictive EULA that was proposed). B) It's a well known, well analyzed license that's been approved by the OSI, so you don't have to get the willies from it C) Most importantly, even the nastiest EULA for a binary installation of a piece of software can't claim to restrict your rights to do what you will with your own code. So when I click through on something for Mozilla, or for Microsoft Word, I'm not usually too worried. This is a source code license, which claims to restrict your ability to do stuff with patches for the code - basically, it virally gives Sun ownership rights over code you write. I consider that willie-inducing.

Open Source Definition vs. SCSL

Free Redistribution

Nope.

Source Code

Doesn't allow free redistribution, so redistribution in source code fails, too.

Derived Works

Nope.

Integrity of The Author's Source Code

Doesn't allow free distribution of separate modifications either.

No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

I guess it passes that one, yay!

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

Nope. Explicitely limits fields of endeavor to research, commercial use, or internal use.

Distribution of License

Nope. The TCK license comes with what's effectively a NDA.

License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

I guess it passes that one, yay!

License Must Not Restrict Other Software

Nope. Once you've agreed to SCSL, you can't distribute non-compliant software. So you couldn't redistribute kaffe, gcj, or even more up-to-date versions of Xerces if they break tests in the TCK.

License Must Be Technology-Neutral

Nope. It's a click-wrap license. It even has a pointless [ACCEPT] [REJECT] at the bottom

Total: 2 out of 10.

In summary, it's not open source. It's not even close.

If it were OSI certified then this would be interesting and very useful - however it isn't.

I think Sun is a great company but it does irk me that they are dilly dallying on open sourcing the J2SE source code. I think it's some what inevitable that they will. Hopefully they will do it while it will allow OSS and Sun to make competitive advantage of it.

What is the status of SCSL and JRL with other open source licenses e.g. BSD, GPL or more restrictive. any martix?
http://www.opensource.org/

You're the clueless idiot. The BSD (sans advertising clause) is GPL compatible, any changes you make, you can choose to re-release the entire program under the GPL. The old code before your changes can still be considered under BSD, but everything else can be GPL'd.

Have you read the BSD licence and this story?

Copyright (c) ,
All rights reserved.

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

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

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

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

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

In other words (the bold part), the BSD licence must remain with any code that has had the BSD licence applied.

The GPL idiot and thief, removed the BSD licence from the original authors BSD licenced code. You cannot change a few words and then strip out the copyright/licence, let alone replace those with your details and a licence of your choosing.

If any original code remains, then the BSD licence must also.

This 4gl business, is a copyright infringement and must be one of the most dishonorable and blatant OSS violations I have seen in a while. Unforunately, in every community, there are going to be some scumbags.

>user's perspectives. Face it, Windows XP was a
>very big and impressive release to the average
>user.

Please define "average user". This to me is a rather vague and ambiguous term, and could cause me to make certain assumptions about the type of user you're talking about, which you may not have intended.

>that there are no weak links.That means that >X.Org, Linux, KDE/GNOME, etc will have to fit
>into each other's design very well and as tightly
>as Windows and MacOS X.

No...The different elements of Linux were initially designed as components...seperate pieces...and this decision was made for a number of reasons that developed over quite a long period of time...X Windows in particular predates Linux. This document may be of relevance if you are interested in learning about the rationale behind modular design, and why monolithic design (the philosophy Microsoft have traditionally used) is normally not as effective.

Microsoft's direction is set, broadly speaking, by people whose skillset is oriented a lot more along the lines of economics and marketing than programming as such. The company exists for two reasons that I have been able to discern:-

(a) To make money via appealing to the largest possible demographic of the computer using population. Technical excellence, despite claims to the contrary, has been repeatedly shown as not being one of Microsoft's priorities. I can also cite numerous pieces of evidence in support of that assertion if you are interested.

(b) To maintain control primarily of the software industry, but also potentially of others...for reasons largely unknown, but presumably a continued desire for generation of massive revenue is a factor. This is a more difficult assertion to support, but Bill Gates has on a few occasions outlined visions of a particular future scenario in which Microsoft has a high degree of control of the areas of both computer software and entertainment/journalistic media.

It also would not be accurate to say that Microsoft have any real advantage over Linux, technical or otherwise...and they are well aware of this, and have mentioned it in profit statements. This document, as well as a collection of documents here outline in high detail the specific challenges Microsoft face in dealing with Linux, and the corporation's long term prognosis cannot be honestly described as positive. I believe that the company's best case scenario within the next decade or so is gradual marginalisation and a decreasing degree of market relevance. Worst case scenario (for them) is bankruptcy, probably ten years or so out at the earliest. This is an unlikely scenario, but given the amount of litigation the company has faced in the last few years, its tremendous losses in the court of public opinion, and the degree to which Windows sales have slowed, (not to mention the most devastating element, which is the lack of a genuinely concrete roadmap after Windows NT 4) it is becoming increasingly possible. The other thing that causes this to be more possible now is the fact that while Microsoft are not developing any substantially new products, (despite the claim at the beginning of your comment, most of the changes to Windows XP were cosmetic at best) the insecurity of Windows XP and the associated necessity to release massive and constant amounts of patches for it means that Microsoft can no longer afford to support older versions of its operating system, despite the fact that many people still use them.

I believe I observed the beginning of Microsoft's downfall in around September/October 1997. Although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer, the company is now losing blood...a combination of Linux, its own mistakes/misdeeds, and a recent comparitive lack of direction have left it mortally wounded. I also do not believe, no

No. Firefox is MPL, not GPL.

I'd expect a Netscape-style license if Google makes their browser.

So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you:
a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or
b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?

So what do you actually want me to pick? A license or a guy? Because in either case the answer might be different. Of course if you want me to pick a guy, then obviously I will pick the prettiest one. However if I was going to base my opinions about texts I read only on the appearance of their respective authors, a priori excluding those "in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly" as you suggest, I would never read the Bible, or the United States Constitution, for that matter.

Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.

If it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong, then it's probably pointless to argue, since that who is more popular is rather obvious, and that who is handsomer is a subjective matter.

Nevertheless let's not confuse the difference between Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds with that between GPL and X11/BSD-style licenses. Linus Torvalds has released Linux under The GNU General Public License written by Richard Stallman and considers it "one of the very best design decisions" he has ever made, so the freedom of their users and developers is exactly identical.

And to be honest neither one of them has ever denied me any freedom--as a user, as a developer, or any other one. They may say different things, but their work is equally "communistic"--they both use the very same license.

First of all I respect opinions of both Stallman and Torvalds, even though I tend to agree with the former more often, which makes me a saint in the Church of Emacs, if nothing else. The important thing to understand, however, is that in any practical terms the free software/open source schism doesn't really matter. Both movements have very different reasons and slightly different goals, but their means are exactly the same.

The first version of the Open Source Definition by OSI is nothing more but Free Software Guidelines from the Debian Social Contract with words "free software" changed to "open source" and every "Debian" changed to "project." I urge everyone who wants to know the difference between free software and open source to read both of those definitions very carefully.

In other words open source software and free software is the same thing, even if backed by two movements. Those movements do essentially the same even if for different reasons. One of those movement is a "fork" of the other one, made relatively recently, only six years ago. They may have different opinions on many important issues, but at the end every single line of Linux can be legally used in GNU and vice versa.

What I have observed is that people usually stick to one side of the percieved conflict--be it Linux vs. GNU/Linux, free software vs. open source, GPL vs. BSD, Gnome vs. KDE or anything--and fight stronger than those people who have started that conflic

After all:

Halloween XI: Get The FUD
22 Jun 2004

Oh, well - guess I'll have to wait for this year's slashdot halloween costume poll http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1007

Favorite Halloween Activity?
_2% Knott's Scary Farm
_3% Braving local haunted houses
25% Turning my home into a pit of evil
10% Tricking
12% Treating
_9% Pumpkin smashing
11% Dressing up like the opposite sex
23% Dressing up like the same sex

I'm not sure if you are right. This page quotes an IBM exec as saying (from what I can tell) that they are planning to open hardware development tools as well. I think the key point is what they will open, and under what license. This REXX release is under the CPL which I'm not deeply familiar with -- but which seems at first glance to be pretty liberal, and would allow competitors (or any one else) to benefit from the source code, should they wish to do so?

Well, the M$ vs Linux has already been done that way: Halloween documents IV-V Thanks ESR.

As to this specific proposal, the software is not-really-open-source during the duration of the patent, it's merely source-viewable, with the guarantee that when it comes off patent it will be truly Open Source. The real difference here is that people in the Open Source camp are willing to work with corporations and accept compromises in order to ultimately expand the body of Open Source work, whereas people on the Free Software side tend to be much more absolutist, oppose software patents in all incarnations, and basically believe all software should be Free as in Speech (and beer, since it's fundamentally implied by the former condition no matter what some here may say with absurd scenario descriptions).

The OSI has a rather clear definition of Open Source available, and the very first part of the definition is Free Redistribution. You are welcome to harbor your own definition of "Open Source" or "Free Software" that differ from those endorsed by the OSI or the FSF, and nobody can stop you from doing so, but don't pretend that your definition represents that of the majority of the FOSS community, or software developers in general.

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.

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 a patent is restricting the use of the code then it is not Open Source. If it cannot be used then it is really no different from a software company releasing a proprietary closed source .dll containing the implementation of their patented algorithm. Ultimately he is just promoting describing the patent in a different way. Any competent engineer should be able to implement an algorithm from a well-written patent description anyway - while useful the source code would ultimately be redundant.

Tim has missed the entire point of the patent debate.

The license applies to binary and source form distributions, they are generally held to both be covered by copyright law, so they are both implicitly under the license. Almost EVERY Open Source license has this clause in it. People generally put the copyright notice in the documentation accompanying the binaries (documentation files are included in their definition of "the Software"), in a README file, or you can probably compile it as a string if you prefer. If the license doesn't specify, then anything that complies with the license can be presumed to be valid.

As for "this software", the license only applies to _this software_. Not to other software that you write, that links to this software - that's the way copyright law works, unless you put unusual clauses in place like the GPL does.

You are looking for surprises where there aren't any. This isn't some strange new license, it's just the simplest possible Open Source license (whether you think this means it's the best is a different issue).

Explain to me exactly how *any* language is Open Source. Please, I really want to know. How does any language satisfy the 10 criteria http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Next time you decide to spout off at the mouth, have an original thought.

it's the OSI approved version of the license. Apparently some old files had the old 4-clause license hanging around.

This is an improvement, and isn't making it any harder for Matt and other's ideas to get out. It's actually making the code MORE open, from the GNU/FSF/OSI standpoint. Nice attempt at a troll, though.

It's released unter the CPL which is OSI-approved

If Bob Scheifler had read the Open Source definition he would have noticed that maybe criteria 8 and 10 contends with what he wanted to accomplish.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution.
His test suite would be another program.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral:No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
The environment to be tested might not support all of the I/O that his suite might need in order to pass. IE maybe it has some combination of no writable filespace, no gui, no network connection, no terminal....

I wish the definition was more clear that the license itself shouldn't restrict the kinds of modifications that can occur. If that is impied then criteria 3 is abused as well.
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. You are allowed to make modification as long as the md5sum of the resultant file is cc4e48a5fe0ba15b13a98b3fd34b340e ;->

GNU arch was awarded an Open Source Award last quarter.

As ever people OSI is accepting nominations for OSAs.

John.

GNU arch was awarded an Open Source Award last quarter.

As ever people OSI is accepting nominations for OSAs.

John.

Already done:

http://opensource.org/trademarks/

and

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Microsoft themselves have even aknowledged "that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by OSS projects." See Halloween I

1. Justice Department blocks M$'s acquisition of Intuit Quicken in 1994, fearing it would raise software prices and diminish innovation
   
2. embracing Sun's Java into their own Windows-specific API which resulted in a lawsuit that ended in Sun's favor
   
3. the infamous Halloween memos that outlined M$ strategy to blocking Linux from the market
4. The web browser war against Netscape now Mozilla
5. M$ was found to be bankrolling the SCO/IBM/Linux debacle against the open source movement
   
6. neutralizing w3c compliance by distributing Windows-eccentric webpage API libraries that lock Internet webpages into IE
7. ITEF rejecting M$ patent pending proprietary Sender-ID as too restrictive and puts too much control into M$'s hands
8. A list of M$ innovations^W plagliarisms
   

"Can Microsoft ever win here? Are they always evil no matter what they do?"

If they'd made this an open standard by using a lesls restrictive license, we'd be cheering Microsoft on. They didn't, so they're the bad guys.

Microsoft aren't always the bad guys - they're often the victims of bad IP lawsuits. But in this particular instance, they are.

"Do you honestly believe thay'd start charging royalties on every email sent or something crazy like that?"

The aim of the game is to 'decommodotize standards' Microsoft was attempting to build a standard which would need to be used by everybody, slap some form of patent on it, and then lock out the people they were competing with, in this case, anyone using copyleft licenses.

The strategy was described by Microsoft in a document which was leaked to the public and appears on the OSI website here

Quote:

"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."

There are many opensource licenses. All opensource means is that the code is available for inspection and modification. Opensource is more a copyright issue and has nothing to do with patents. The gpl --- which is not the same as opensource --- addresses both copyright and patent issues.

Open source is about a lot more than just having access to the source code.

2.1 The Licensor hereby grants the Licensee a non-exclusive license to a) make copies of the Licensed Software in source and object code form for use within the Licensee's organisation; b) modify copies of the Licensed Software to create derivative works thereof for use within the Licensee's organisation.

2.2 The Licensed Software either in whole or in part can not be distributed or sub-licensed to any third party in any form.

This license is in no way Open Source. Yes, you can play with the source, but you cannot build something useful with it and redistribute under the same license.

This is partly what the Open Source Awards are about. Anyone can nominate people or projects for awards and $500 Merit Awards are handed out quarterly. You can see the current list of winners.

Voting will soon get underway for Q3 winners so get nominating!

John.

This is partly what the Open Source Awards are about. Anyone can nominate people or projects for awards and $500 Merit Awards are handed out quarterly. You can see the current list of winners.

Voting will soon get underway for Q3 winners so get nominating!

John.

This is partly what the Open Source Awards are about. Anyone can nominate people or projects for awards and $500 Merit Awards are handed out quarterly. You can see the current list of winners.

Voting will soon get underway for Q3 winners so get nominating!

John.

They have been thinking of using patents, and specifically to attack Linux, since 1998.

So yes, you are the only person to notice, sorry.

Umm.. I'm not anti-DFBSD and pro-FBSD, but I do think this is absolutely stupid. You want to see attribution from FreeBSD to DragonflyBSD? There are a few problems with this:

a) You don't know if they actually took code from DragonflyBSD or if they were just (gasp) updating because they felt a need to stay competitive... that being one of the main intended effects of non-monopolistic free-market economics... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition#In_econom ics_and_business

b) Even if they did take *actual code* from DragonflyBSD, the BSD license doesn't require attribution any longer. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

c) Even if they did take *actual code* from DragonflyBSD, Dragonfly's TCP stack came from FreeBSD to BEGIN with, so why is it so scandalous to merge code into FBSD's tree when that code is based on the original FBSD tree? See http://www.dragonflybsd.org/main/

d) DragonflyBSD actually is *entirely* based on FBSD 4.x so it seems a little arrogant and petty to demand a shoutout from FreeBSD when DragonFlyBSD owes its very *existence* to FreeBSD. Again see http://www.dragonflybsd.org/main/

Don't be a troll.

There is no need to run Microsoft products.

Microsoft products are inherently unsafe compared to GNU/Linux. Read this article as well. Microsoft lies to its customers and to everyone else.

I cannot figure out why people still use Microsoft products, unless it is because of sheer ignorance. My company runs Mandrakelinux. Microsoft products are not allowed in the offices nor on the production floor. If we can do it, so can you.

What about the halloween memos? You can't be that new to slashdot, your uid number isn't that large

Being here and participating here does not mean that I'm a believer in the anti-ms FUD that gets spread. Actually it means I take most of the sniping with the same salt I apply to republican "democrats are the devil" antics. It's all over the top, and it obscures any valid points that can be made.

Go back and reread the "worst" of the halloween memo's (#1) http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.php ..I just did. Ignore the Green (commentary) text... maybe even just plow through the MS text that's been highlighted in red. Really try to examine it... what is in there that is so horrific? A big company that examined it's competition and took careful notes?

Microsoft aren't directly preventing others from entering the market and making a place for themselves. But they do make to very hard with their well-established software and lock-in tricks. Anyone wishing to compete with MS cannot make something just a little better than MS's product. They would have to make it so incredibly, amazingly better than MS

Yes. You have to make it amazingly better than an MS product.. but if you believe the rhetoric posted here then it can't be that hard to do. You can even use their devilishly-clever "we'll give it to you for free" tactics against them...

I love my VW (seriously, stick with me here). My love for that car (the handling, the layout, the comfort... I could go on...) makes it 100% more likely that I will buy another VW the next time around because of that experience. If my experience was other than fantastic I would consider another brand... the only thing that will break that mold is if something is unbelievably, fantastically different (say GM has something hydrogen powered before VW does).

there it is, imho.

This is not the way free/open source software should be approached, IMO. Nobody is going to make much money by trying to sell something that users can get for free. You can sell a service based on the software but that's about it.

I don't think you intended to imply that Free Software or Open Source software is always free of charge. I'll make the point anyhow, just in case someone misreads it. I am sure there is somebody who wants to read About Free Software.

While it is often true that its usually easy for users to get Free Software for no charge, it doesn't have to be like that.

A hypothetical example:
I might write a peace of software, that I chose to distribute for a fee, but distributing it under the GNU General Public License. Now, while you might get it for free, it might be hard. My customers might not wanna give it away something they paid for in full for no fee, or maybe you don't even know who to ask.

Eventually my customers might be selling the software cheaper than I am, and I'll have to compete, maybe adjusting my price down, selling support and the like to the end-users, but if I already sold enough software to pay for my work when this happens, why be sad? A lot of users will be using my software and will learn that my software is good quality, which again will make it easier to sell them my next product, ensuring me butter for my bread.

If you want to read more about selling Free Software, you might want to read the article Selling Free Software, it has even been translated to several languages.

/Spam .

I imagine that he can't demand that anyone who has exercised the rights granted under his license to retroactively remove his work from their own

Such rights were already excercised by a lot of Linux distributions, because his work was in the _pristine_, official Linus' kernel; besides, the copyright of his work is not only his: his code is a derivative work on lots of parts of the kernel, and, as such, the copyright holders of those parts are stake-holders in the copyrights of his work.

You used the expression "rescinded the license", but this is something he coud not do, event if he was the sole copyright owner: the GPL itself prevents it. When you license something under the GPL, you are granting a non-rescindable license (except in the case of section #4).

I have a bit of code I'm thinking of open-sourcing -- I've kept it closed simply because it's essentially a web-spider, and I incorporated pauses in it, to spare other people's servers, that I don't want selfish users to remove. I wish there were an established license that would allow me to open source it with conditions, like "don't remove the pauses". And I really wouldn't want anyone to, for instance, re-brand and sell my code -- as they can with the GPL, so long as they offer the source code

Please, please: read the DFSG AND the OSI Open Source Definition. What you want is _not_ open source, and _not_ Free software. You are better off, for now, not opening the code for your spider.

(SCO-Microsoft connection)
Where is the source for this information?

Does this little lot help?

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

http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/045725 9.shtml

http://www.practical-tech.com/business/b05212003.h tm

The battle over this song is just part of the larger war to maintain our Fair Use rights. The outcome of this war, with battlegrounds ranging from JibJab to MP3.com, Linux to Microsoft, could well define the future progress, or lack thereof, of democracy. Every major political movement needs its anthem and I think that "This Land is made for You and Me" would be serve well for the Fair Use Movement.

... the Open-source marketing droids. If we managed to get some of Microsoft's marketing department staff into open-source, and have them promoting it, we would have a faster-growing marketshare than what we have now. The problem with Microsoft is that the so-called "Independent Studies" aren't independent, and they only look at the short-term expenses. Migrating to Linux may be expensive for a business, e.g. buying new hardware if the selection you have is incompatible, training staff to use the new system, etc. but if you look at the long term benefits, you'll find that costs are reduced dramatically. Windows IIS web servers are more likely to be defaced than Apache servers, although IIS is a small fraction of the servers on port 80 out of the entire internet! Security? Pah! The only reason that there is more security patches is that they are found and fixed quicker. I am using Mandrake 10.0 and I download the updates in bulk. There is a batch every to download and when I have finished there is no more to download for the rest of the week! Read http://opensource.org/, ESR's article Get The FUD in the Halloween documents section. Its just brilliant.

If we had some of Microsoft's droids working for us, the open-source community in promoting open-source software, we may possibly have a big market share (as if we haven't got a growing one already).

Just my two pence.

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

They started by creating the CPL, getting it certified, and have now been hiring prominent open source developers to work on CPL.

The CPL was not created by Microsoft - as mentioned here, it was created by IBM, and is essentially an updated and generalized version of IBM's original Open Source license, the IBM Public License.

When someone incorporates CPL code, there's no way to prove that they modified it themselves, and so CPL compliance is based entirely on the goodwill of corporations, and we've seen how generous that goodwill is...

Irrelevant - there's no way to prove that someone has incorporated GPL code into a closed source product, short of obvious indicators like embedded strings, etc. GPL compliance is also "based entirely on the goodwill of corporations". The long and the short of the matter is that a company that's willing to knowingly violate the CPL will probably also be willing to knowingly violate the GPL.

The CPL is designed so that companies can take advantage of the work of open source developers without having to compensate them in any way... traditionally, with Open Source, the developers receive the source for their project, and any derivative works.

As is the GPL. Neither the CPL nor the GPL are concerned with the origin of software, they're concerned with the distribution of software. They're both designed to ensure that the recipient of a piece of software has access to the source code. That's it. Nothing in either license about compensating the original developers, or having to give back source code to the original developers. Even you recognize this - while it's "traditional" to contribute back changes to an GPL'd project, it's not required. In fact, the FSF considers this kind of requirement onerous enough that they explicitly classify licenses that have this requirement (for example, the Open Public License) as non-free.

Now, the reason why I bring this all up is that, as mentioned above, Microsoft has been hiring prominent open source developers, having them release their source under the CPL.

...which is bad, why? We're talking about Microsoft's own code, here - it's their choice as to what license they want to release their code under. The CPL is recognized by the OSI. It's acknowledged as a free software license by the FSF, albeit one incompatible with the current GPL because it addresses patent issues that the GPL does not.

In fact, at this point, if there's anyone that's getting a "free ride" off of Microsoft's actions, it's everyone except Microsoft, who now has access to - and can use - Microsoft's CPL software, as is, without any obligation.

Overall, I think this is a positive event. It appears there are OSS advocates (not juse Josh!) within Microsoft who seem to be trying to convince the corporate culture there that OSS is not neccesarily a threat to Microsoft, and they're going about it in a very reasonable way. They selected an existing OSS license instead of coming up with Yet Another License. They released code for a couple of trial projects under this license, and have been following the OSS philosophy of "release early, release often". They've apparently met with enough success with these projects that they feel they have a good reason to actively encourage the release other projects under OSS licenses, and they're asking the community for input on what else to consider releasing

They started by creating the CPL, getting it certified, and have now been hiring prominent open source developers to work on CPL.

The CPL was not created by Microsoft - as mentioned here, it was created by IBM, and is essentially an updated and generalized version of IBM's original Open Source license, the IBM Public License.

When someone incorporates CPL code, there's no way to prove that they modified it themselves, and so CPL compliance is based entirely on the goodwill of corporations, and we've seen how generous that goodwill is...

Irrelevant - there's no way to prove that someone has incorporated GPL code into a closed source product, short of obvious indicators like embedded strings, etc. GPL compliance is also "based entirely on the goodwill of corporations". The long and the short of the matter is that a company that's willing to knowingly violate the CPL will probably also be willing to knowingly violate the GPL.

The CPL is designed so that companies can take advantage of the work of open source developers without having to compensate them in any way... traditionally, with Open Source, the developers receive the source for their project, and any derivative works.

As is the GPL. Neither the CPL nor the GPL are concerned with the origin of software, they're concerned with the distribution of software. They're both designed to ensure that the recipient of a piece of software has access to the source code. That's it. Nothing in either license about compensating the original developers, or having to give back source code to the original developers. Even you recognize this - while it's "traditional" to contribute back changes to an GPL'd project, it's not required. In fact, the FSF considers this kind of requirement onerous enough that they explicitly classify licenses that have this requirement (for example, the Open Public License) as non-free.

Now, the reason why I bring this all up is that, as mentioned above, Microsoft has been hiring prominent open source developers, having them release their source under the CPL.

...which is bad, why? We're talking about Microsoft's own code, here - it's their choice as to what license they want to release their code under. The CPL is recognized by the OSI. It's acknowledged as a free software license by the FSF, albeit one incompatible with the current GPL because it addresses patent issues that the GPL does not.

In fact, at this point, if there's anyone that's getting a "free ride" off of Microsoft's actions, it's everyone except Microsoft, who now has access to - and can use - Microsoft's CPL software, as is, without any obligation.

Overall, I think this is a positive event. It appears there are OSS advocates (not juse Josh!) within Microsoft who seem to be trying to convince the corporate culture there that OSS is not neccesarily a threat to Microsoft, and they're going about it in a very reasonable way. They selected an existing OSS license instead of coming up with Yet Another License. They released code for a couple of trial projects under this license, and have been following the OSS philosophy of "release early, release often". They've apparently met with enough success with these projects that they feel they have a good reason to actively encourage the release other projects under OSS licenses, and they're asking the community for input on what else to consider releasing

(...) people's definitions of "open source" (...)

There is on true definition

I'm a bit confused as to whether you are refering to the original (see the UCB/LBL section) or the revised BSD license.

Under the revised BSD license (which is very similar to the X11 license and is what I am assuming is what you are refering to as the "MIT license") you need only mention copyrights in documentation.

Under the original BSD license you HAVE to mention the copyrights and contributors when the program is used or when the program is advertised.