Slashdot Mirror

The are many ways to make (save) cash out of open source ( see http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_busine ss.php for a big picture). There are many success stories of companies that open sourced their softwares, but there were failures too. The problem is that since the "open source" concept is relatively new to company executives, they dont really know how to get the company involved with a community and how to leverage the work comming from the community. I just finished my B.B.A in IT and wrote a paper on open source business models (sry, french is my 1st language). Now I just signed for an other year (lol) and I plan to be doing my master degree on key success indicators of companies open source ventures or something like that. This time I'll have a copy written in english and hope it'll help open source getting more acceptance from company executives.

Excluding parasitic evildoers is good.

Now, go read the Halloween document collection.

• What the US government has to say about MS IE and its terrible security.
• Proof that MS Windows is terribly insecure compared to Linux. Linux is more secure, more stable, and faster than Ms Windows.
• Learn about Microsoft's lies and the real 'Total Cost of Ownership' (TCO) statistics. Linux is much cheaper to install and run then MS Windows.

• What the US government has to say about MS IE and its terrible security.
• Proof that MS Windows is terribly insecure compared to Linux. Linux is more secure, more stable, and faster than Ms Windows.
• Learn about Microsoft's lies and the real 'Total Cost of Ownership' (TCO) statistics. Linux is much cheaper to install and run then MS Windows.

• What the US government has to say about MS IE and its terrible security.
• Proof that MS Windows is terribly insecure compared to Linux. Linux is better.
• Learn about Microsoft's lies and the real 'Total Cost of Ownership' (TCO) statistics. Linux is much cheaper to install and run then MS Windows.

• What the US government has to say about IE security being bad for IE users
• About Windows security vs. Linux security. Windows is bad.
• About 'Total Cost of Ownership' (TCO) statistics; Microsoft's lies

Microsoft software is garbage, and I'll prove it.
The Microsoft Corp. is a collection of liars, thieves, and cheaters who's only motivation is money. They could care less about the safety and security of the people who use their software.

Here are a few links to help you see the truth:

The US government is telling people to stop using Microsoft's software.
Microsoft has lied and got caught trying to fake evidence in court, and they lie to people about TCO (total Cost of Ownership) statistics.
The Microsoft Windows operating system is dangerous for eveyone.
Using Microsoft software is a bad idea for people and the internet as a whole. Don't believe me? Click the above links and read the articles for yourself.

How much more proof do you need to throw Microsoft Windows, and other MS software, in the garbage and switch to Linux?

• What the US government has to say about IE security
• About Windows security vs. Linux security
• About 'Total Cost of Ownership' (TCO) statistics

• What the US government has to say about IE security
• About Windows security vs. Linux security
• About 'Total Cost of Ownership' (TCO) statistics

• What the US government has to say about IE security
• About Windows security vs. Linux security
• About 'Total Cost of Ownership' (TCO) statistics

This article explains a lot.

Given the way corporate interests are acting these days, I think there will be a strong demands for licenses that push the envelope in terms of modifying corporate behavior.

The original #9 on Mr. Perens' website("The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software.") is longer, and clearly GPL friendly; he goes out of his way to state that the GPL is in fact compliant with #9.

The report version is shorter with no explanation, and actually uses different phrasing: "License must not contaminate other software".
Sound familiar?

It seems they let just about anybody post to Slashdot these days.

It seems they let just about anybody post to Slashdot these days.

OPENSOURCE does not mean GNU.
Right.

Proprietary does not mean non-GNU.
Right.

Proprietary does not mean Commercial Software.
Wrong. "Proprietary software" = commercial software, open source or not, gnu or not, whatever.

Open-source means I can view the source!
Wrong. Open source as most define it, by the OSI definition means far more than just viewing the source.

Proprietary means the product does not follow open standards.

Wrong again. You are confusing "proprietary standards" which mean standards which are owned by some corporate entity, with proprietary software, which is software owned by some corporate entity. Proprietary software may use a proprietary standard, but there is nothing stopping proprietary software from using open standards. HTML is an open standard, Microsoft Word format a proprietary one.

Please read at least the first line of the Open Source Definition:

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

Note that opensource.org invented the term "open source" - it was not in use to describe software until they had that meeting where they invented the term - so they certainly get to say what it means.

DJBDNS is "disclosed source". Big difference.

Yes, there is a big difference, and djbdns is not Open Source. It violates points #3 and #4 of the Open Source Definition. (It also doesn't comply with the DFSG which is why Debian has it in non-free.)

I quote:

3. Derived Works

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.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

In any case, given the choice between running djbdns and running an ugly beast of a DNS server, BIND, I chose to run djbdns.

I'm not worried about getting locked-in to djbdns, since I could probably write a complete replacement for it in about a week if I needed to (in Python, or about 2 weeks if I did it in C). I've already written a tinydns replacement, and most of an axfrdns replacement (there is one bug in my axfrdns-replacement that I have to track down). I wrote both of those in a day (in Python).

[...] The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.[...]

This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.

So I fail to see the reasoning behind the suggestion that I should be expected to provide the fruits of my labor to the world for no financial reward. How did that happen? Well, it's easy to see the foundations for it, which are perfectly noble and valid - this all started because some people (RMS et al, for whom I have nothing but respect) wanted to share code with fellow developers, which also has its basis in the longstanding scientific traditions of sharing knowledge

Perhaps I have been out of the "inner" loop for too long and I know that RMS is not everyone's favourite guy, but based on his early talks and papers I am not aware of anything which even suggests that "free" software needs to be provided without payment.

RMS himself had a successful mail order situation going with emacs. He just didn't require people to get it from him for payment. If you could get it from a friend for no charge, then by all means go for it. This seems, to me to be similar to the approach taken by any number of musicians who responded to the "dentistry music playing" topic elsewhere when they say that they just want to produce music and have people hear it.

Sure, people could obtain emacs from a friend or associate but it was surprising how many chose to buy it from RMS.

I could also direct the reader to Bittorrent (no requirement for payment) or even Winzip. These items do not absolutely require payment for use although there is some degeee of nag involved - less for Bittorrent, more for Winzip. But ultimately, the thing doesn't die on you nor render itself crippled if you don't pay.

Both, however, give the user an opportunity to "contribute to the providers of the product" one way or another and both have now gone through several versions and are still being developed. If purchases aren't being made then the income is coming from somewhere and I can only assume that that income source sees a good reason to support it.

Sourceforge, on the other hand, provides little information on how to contribute. Sure there may be a link to a homepage where a request might exist but to a downloader, they will only tend to see the pages on sourceforge. Finding out how to contribute requires extra work in seeking it out. This, in itself, doesn't help that process.

I have put any number of clients (individuals, small businesses and corporate) onto items such as PDF Creator because it is such a bloody good and useful thing which directly supports their business needs. However, I'm pretty sure that several of my corporate clients have not chosen to take it up because it was seen as "freeware". Something as simple as a voluntary registration would have put it on the same footing as Winzip, which they have absolutely no problem with paying for.

Businesses are used to paying for services and products and include these payments on their assets, profit and loss and taxation statements. If it is worthwhile, they seem to be fine with paying for it. (Many businesses, that is. I am very aware of others who will even bring legal actions against providers who have delivered in order to screw them over and avoid payment. Just in case anyone thinks I am a complete professional ignoramus.)

The article seems to have fallen into the FUD propagated by some companies I will not mention in conflating "free" as in beer and "free" as in freedom. I was very pleased to read the response from Dr Nunez of Peru which explicitly demonstrates that this linguistic trick / sleight of hand is a specific problem of the English language and that trying to use it in Spanish (for example) is a fool's errand.

Let's not be fools. If RMS can handle the idea of receiving payment for software and could demonstrate that it was economically useful, then it appears that it can be both viable and ideologically watertight. I'm not sure why this article chooses to propagate FUD. Unless the Open Source community has already fallen for it, of course.

So it's more BSD-like then, big deal.

The BSD abandoned that clause for a reason. But Microsoft's license actually goes much further. If you distribute source code under a BSD license, the recipient still has no rights to use the software unless they contact Microsoft and get permission specifically. The license requires you to put this notice on any source code that implements SPF:

"This source code may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. Our provision of this source code does not include any licenses or any other right to you under any Microsoft intellectual property. If you would like a license from Microsoft (e.g. rebrand, redistribute), you need to contact Microsoft directly."

Which directly contradicts the very definition of Open Source. In other words, Microsoft's license is incompatible with all open source licenses!

Why is that different to the GPL? They're both licences that apply to the use of software. Without a license, you can't legally use any non-public domain software. The GPL is one such license, this is another.

You need a license to use patented technology. You do not need a license to use copyrighted software. Copyright only gives the author a monopoly on:

1. the right of reproduction (i.e., copying),
2. the right to create derivative works,
3. the right to distribution,
4. the right to performance,
5. the right to display, and
6. the digital transmission performance right.

Note that the right to use is not in there. The GPL specifically allows you to decline the license. You may still go ahead and use the software even after declining the license. The GPL simply grants you the six rights listed above (with certain conditions).

Microsoft's license, however, grants a revocable right to use their patents. You could distribute SPF software under a BSD license, and Microsoft could revoke anyone's right to use the patent at any time (even if you already have the software, use it, and depend on it).

Big deal. Why does everything have to be GPL compatible? What would be wrong with, say, a BSD-style license for this particular application?

Even though you could distribute SPF software under a BSD license, you could not redistribute the software without explicit permission from Microsoft. That pretty much excludes the open source, bazaar style of development.

Make no mistake about it. Microsoft wants to shut down open source software. What better way than to prohibit open source software from doing that which people most use computers for, to send and receive email?

While it's nice to see someone on /. get it right for a change, I'm a bit irritated at the tiny number of people that actually read it. The whole thing is shorter than the GPL's preamble.

3-clause BSD license

Freedom concerning software or source code and access to source code should not be confused. Allowing inspection of source code by those outside could be beneficial. However, there would be issues such as whether being able to see only parts of the source would be sufficient or whether the source provided for inspection was secretly altered (would the inspectors be able to actually try out the code personally? What exactly would they be allowed to do with the code?) Hopefully this would not lead to a false sense of security. One problem is that some individuals might feel bitter because only a few individuals outside the company received the privilege of inspecting the source code.

The Open Source Initiative company has talked about how problems could arise from a source-access program such as "Shared Source." Namely, these problems would be copyright and trade secret issues if developers viewed the proprietary source code and then produced competing software. It might be necessary to carefully keep track of who has accessed the provided source. They also mention that those inspecting the source code could end up serving as "free labor" for the company that produced the code.

For freedom, free software (free as in free speech) or open source software (under the OSI definition) would be a much better choice.

Freedom concerning software or source code and access to source code should not be confused. Allowing inspection of source code by those outside could be beneficial. However, there would be issues such as whether being able to see only parts of the source would be sufficient or whether the source provided for inspection was secretly altered (would the inspectors be able to actually try out the code personally? What exactly would they be allowed to do with the code?) Hopefully this would not lead to a false sense of security. One problem is that some individuals might feel bitter because only a few individuals outside the company received the privilege of inspecting the source code.

The Open Source Initiative company has talked about how problems could arise from a source-access program such as "Shared Source." Namely, these problems would be copyright and trade secret issues if developers viewed the proprietary source code and then produced competing software. It might be necessary to carefully keep track of who has accessed the provided source. They also mention that those inspecting the source code could end up serving as "free labor" for the company that produced the code.

For freedom, free software (free as in free speech) or open source software (under the OSI definition) would be a much better choice.

Freedom concerning software or source code and access to source code should not be confused. Allowing inspection of source code by those outside could be beneficial. However, there would be issues such as whether being able to see only parts of the source would be sufficient or whether the source provided for inspection was secretly altered (would the inspectors be able to actually try out the code personally? What exactly would they be allowed to do with the code?) Hopefully this would not lead to a false sense of security. One problem is that some individuals might feel bitter because only a few individuals outside the company received the privilege of inspecting the source code.

The Open Source Initiative company has talked about how problems could arise from a source-access program such as "Shared Source." Namely, these problems would be copyright and trade secret issues if developers viewed the proprietary source code and then produced competing software. It might be necessary to carefully keep track of who has accessed the provided source. They also mention that those inspecting the source code could end up serving as "free labor" for the company that produced the code.

For freedom, free software (free as in free speech) or open source software (under the OSI definition) would be a much better choice.

The result is that it's impossible to incorporate GPL software into a commercial product if you wish the software to remain proprietary. With PHP software, no problem.

I think the GPL definitely has its place. I think it's good to know you can write something and publish it under a license that meann anyone can benefit from it, but also you (and the code) can benefit from other people's contributions.
I also think that other licenses (like BSD) are good in that it's like a goodwill version where people can contribute if they choose, and if not then they can still use the code in proprietary systems. Although I prefer software that is free and/or Free these days, I also accept that proprietary/closed software isn't going anywhere quite yet. Heck, I personally think that a BSD-style license would be more appealing to companies using proprietary (or licensed-from-others) components. Then can use what they find, contribute what they can, and keep back what they need.

As at least one other comment has stated the problem is when every organisation and it's mother decides to use its own specialised license. There's the GPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL, Apache License, and a whole load more besides.
I know that the GPL and BSD licenses appear to be the opposite extremes of open licensing, but do there really need to be quite so many in-between licenses?

This is what seems kinda redundant about the PHP license. To an extent it seems more corporate-friendly than the GPL, as you can use the code in derivatives without having to release all the changes. And as I said above, I can see why that is going to be important.
But it also looks like they don't like the restrictions of the GPL yet want more restrictions than the BSD or MIT licenses. I know they're fully within their rights to do this but it does seem a bit petty from one angle. To my untrained eye (though I have been looking through the licenses) it looks like it's all about control. Yes they have "released" the source, but it looks like issues of control to me. They want their restrictions and no-one else's. And to me this makes them appear almost as stubborn on these issues as RMS is, only in the other direction.

Of course, I barely understand licensing. And maybe there are subtleties in the various licenses that I simply can't fathom. But maybe some sort of general license covering this middle-ground that the GPL and BSD-style licenses don't cover would be good, as at least it'd make things clearer. As it is there are so many different licenses you'd need to be a lawyer to figure out which licenses are compatible with which others...

...which brings a thought. Has anyone ever created a comparison chart of which licenses can and can't be used with which others? Something like that would be a godsend for anyone who can't understand legalspeak.

At least the PHP License doesn't incorporate the ideas of the Jabber Open Source License or their ilk.
Those licenses possess the requirement that any modifications be licensed back to the licensor (e.g. Jabber) such that they can turn around and incorporate them into their closed source products without any payment whatsoever. Those clauses strike me as licenses to exploit the goodwill and hard work of contributors to your codebase, as a substitute for paying an engineering staff.

It may be time to update my thoughts on the Anderer/MS timeline

McBride took over in late Summer of 2002. From ESR's Halloween VII, we know that in Sept. 2002 that MS was talking about attacking Linux via patents and the risk of a lawsuit. From Halloween VII:

"Linux patent violations/risk of being sued" struck a chord with US and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans and 82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience.

Now, my personal opinion is that Morgan Keegan got wind of this and introduced SCO to MS--though it could well have been someone at SCO or MS who started the introductions, but the timeline of this HP memo fits.

(remember... not all "open source" software is free, it simply means the source code is viewable; like java.)

(remember... not all "open source" software is free, it simply means the source code is viewable; like java.)

No, it won't. Longhorn will have a (pseudo) 3D desktop environment? Have a look here and here for Linux projects so far ahead of what Longhorn is offering in the 3D dept that they'd likely make BillG wet his pants.

Longhorn has database capabilities for finding files easily? Linux has had this for years, and now has things likethis, too.

Longhorn has the ability to group users' files for easy access? Linux can too.

Want smart agents, the software for which is GPLed and a ton easier to set up than Microsoft Agent? Here.

For exotic technologies and bleeding-edge applications, Linux is *not* being forced to play catch-up. Microsoft are, and they know it.

Simple.

It fails at least OSD #1, #3, #4 and #6.

Its source is available, but open source it's not. Of course there are always some people who try to twist language enough to claim that "open source" == "source available", but then if you wanted to be understood you'd say "source available". Open source did never, and will never, mean simply "source code available for viewing under some arbitrary conditions which may or may not include paying a billion dollars".

MS might be on their way out generally, but they still have plenty of Grima Wormtounge equivalents busily trying to convince people otherwise.

1. The new standards, XML, etc, are going to be controlled as much outside the browser, by the productivity suite, as they will be within it. The standards for basic browsers have more or less solidified at this point. There's no more control to be taken here.

I think this sort of control was always very much the "consolation prize" for MSFT. (One of) the original point(s) of bundling IE in with Windows was probably to try and force people, via "embrace and extend", over to using Windows NT servers and IIS to serve content. Unfortunately this was the first example of them underestimating The Power of Open Source(TM) as Apache emerged at round about the same time, and could scale far better than NT4/IIS could, on proprietary Unices before the true rise of Linux.

2. The browser market has been driven into the ground. There's no money to be made here anymore, as decent free alternatives are available, and the market has gotten used to not paying for their browser. There won't be another Netscape threat.

If you're implying that MS perceived Netscape as a threat in a revenue sense, then I think you're a bit off base. Remember, the anti-trust trial witnesses explained at great length about the "applications barrier to entry" (namely, the positive feedback circle that Windows is popular because it has loads of applications written for it, which in turn feeds its popularity so more applications are written for it). Netscape, and especially Java (remember the still-born WordPerfect for Java?) threatened to undermine that barrier if the browser could become the platform for applications. With Mozilla and technologies like XUL, this threat is more alive than ever.

3. The whole "browser as your desktop" idea has faded away. MS is no longer in danger of losing its OS or productivity-suite sales to a browser company.

Possibly, but even KDE and GNOME perpetuate the "tradition" of using the same application for browsing the local file system and the web. I kind of agree about the threat to MSFT's OS business not coming from a browser company, but I think that's partly an artefact of history - MSFT's continued anti-competitive behaviour made it pretty clear that ANY serious threat to them would have to come from a decentralised organisation (e.g. FOSS) simply because MSFT would crush, by fair means or foul, any other company that tried to compete with them.

3. IE doesn't make them money anyway. At this point, the various holes are costing them more than IE provides them both in actual dollars in support and programmer hours that have to be devoted to containing the mess, and in PR.

Did IE EVER make them any money? OK, we never knew what the cost of Win95b and Win98 would have been if MSFT had been forced to unbundle IE, but it didn't directly make them money IMO. I think your last sentence is closer to the truth than you realise - MSFT has limited programming resources and I read a statistic (can't remember the source alas) that 80% of the Longhorn developers have had to be pulled off Longhorn work, to patch 2000/XP/2003 (and by implication, IE since the codebases are so inter-twined). It's worth reviewing ESR's discussion of Moore's Law as part of Halloween IX - basically, the easily-overlooked consequence of computer power roughly doubling every 18 months is that the software to make use of that power must also double in complexity concurrently with this. IMO, MSFT is becoming a classic victim of this, just as [old and new] SCO did. Of course, MSFT has far more programming resources than SCO does/did, but it will only buy them time and the continued delays and feature shedding of Longhorn are precisely the sort of symptoms to look for.

Second, even if you had the source that does not mean that you could distribute a fixed version. Open source != Free Software.

Second, even if you had the source that does not mean that you could distribute a fixed version. Open source != Free Software.

Actually, Helix's license agreement is already very much open source.

Open source won't use Java until Java is open source. Most OSS developers are wary of traps like that.
(Which caused reluctance to using Qt, which sparked the Gnome project. Now Qt is free, of course.)

Java is certainly going open source. Not Sun's java, but there are plenty of open-source VM:s, and compilers, and a full implementation of the class library in the works.

I predict that, when these projects reach sufficient maturity (AWT/Swing support being the achilles heel in all the above), we will see widespread adoption of Java in the OSS community.

What Sun does will have little impact on the OSS community unless they get serious about open source and put Java under a tolerable license.

(If someone's curious about what is bad about the Sun license, see Dalibor Topic's post here, containing a point-by-point comparison to the Open-source definition.)

If Shared Source software is just another kind of Open Source software, then why isn't its license listed as one on the Open Source License page? I'd say that MS (and you) definitely are trying to confuse the issue.

Insightful? Your comment is garbage.

You are getting into the differences between open source and free software.
The word "open" only implies ability to see into.
What you are complaining about is lack of freedom to use that code you saw.

I don't think you know what open source means. In technical usage, "open source" means licensed under an OSI approved license meeting the Open Source Definition. The mere ability to see the source does not qualify it as OSI-certified(tm) open source. The word "open" therefore implies far more than you acknowledge.

The fact that Joe Average might think Shared Source means the same as open source does not magically alter the technical definition of open source. What Joe Average thinks is completely irrelevant. Joe Average thinks that pi is "three point one four", but I hope you don't use that definition for any important calculations...

Thus far MS has used the CPL for its OSS projects.
Which (take a look at the URL) is OpenSource.

The SSI is a different beast.

WIX & That Other Microsoft One are released under the CPL.

Beep. Wrong.

They have stuff under the CPL, such as WIX.

The SSI is something else, it is aimmed at companys, and includes stuff like WinCE.

It's a bit surprising, but it looks like Microsoft is considering making some of its code open source.

Wrong! MS has never open sourced a single thing. They are "shared sourcing" it, which is not an Open Source license. MS is just attempting to confuse and dilute the term Open Source.

Here's MS's Shared Source Initiative page. This has nothing to do with Open Source. Netscape and Apple both began their Open Source initiatives with licenses that had similar (but not nearly as bad) license problems, and both have eagerly and earnestly worked with the Open Source community and changed their licenses to become truly Open Source.

MS is welcome to do the same, but they won't. Nice try Bill, but like always, you just don't get it.

Common Public License, or CPL, from IBM. But is all written in legalese, not sure what will that imply in plain words. At least they are saying that this is an open source license, to make a difference with Shared Source that is definately not.

Well, he wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar, which has helped to show people that the open-source model of development is viable. He personally talked with executives at Netscape, who had previously read this paper, and convinced them to open-source their browser product, which we know today as Mozilla and its derivatives.

He also maintains the Jargon File, and as you probably know, he published the Halloween Documents, which give the open-source community a look into Microsoft's "attack plans" so we know what to expect and can respond accordingly.

On a smaller scale, he's also one of the founders of CCIL, a freenet in Chester County, Pennsylvania, USA which provides Internet access to people who live or work in the area. This was my first exposure to the Internet (aside from a few emails to AOL and Compuserve members back when I was using Prodigy) and I still use my account, so I think it's a very worthwhile project.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>strings ftp.exe | grep -A 1 Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.

I'm sure everyone recognized the original BSD licence which means that it's legal to copy the code for any purpose if the Copyright is there.... and it's there all right.

They would have been REALLY stupid not to do it since almost EVERYONE copied that basic BSD Network Stack (and applications) :)

It's no secret. "The GPL is free" is dogma. Lots of people know it, but the Linux zealots carry on bleating about how Linux is free.

As long as miserable trolls like you can't come up with a better definition of "free software", it is, so put up or shut up. Here's my proposal: If it includes any restrictions beyond public domain code, it's not free. That would make both the BSDL and the GPL non-free. Do you like that definition better?

No, I don't use it. It's not Open Source.

povray

Yes, I would use it. They're working on making it Open Source.

XFree86

Yes, I use it. All version prior to xfree86.org's idiotic license change, and all new versions from X.org are Open Source.

qmail

No, I don't use it. It's not Open Source.

xv

No, I don't use it. It's not Open Source.

Did you have any other questions? You seem to have a pretty tenuous grasp on what constitutes an Open Source license. I strongly suggest you read the definition before you make wild and incorrect claims about what it means.