Slashdot Mirror

If the article is about Open Source, why does it have a GNU on it? Why not use the OSI logo?

Or, if the article is about GNU, why not say Free Software?

Unless, of course, there is some advantage to creating confusion between the two that I am simply unaware of.

-Peter

So, the license has to require public access to be "open source"? Or what's your point? Or are you not making a point and just blithering.

It has to give access to the public, yes. How else would the public initiall get the source? If they can't get it, then it isn't open. This is discussed in section 2 of the definition. If the public has nowhere to acquire the source of the public domain work, then it is closed source by a failure to meet section 2 of the definition. OSI is not silent about redistribution, and it does require it in section 1. That's why it's entitled, "1. Free Redistribution".

Also contrary to what your post says, public domain is always open source when source is included by the OSI definition because it meets the definition which doesn't require a copyright. In fact, the word copyright never even appears within the definition. The OSI definition of open source is not a license like the GPL or the BSD License, it is a definition. If you do not restrict certain rights from the end user, then your product is open source regardless of copyright.

To quote your own post, Please don't talk authoritatively about a subject to which you clearly know very little about. I'd give you proper credit, but you would only speak while hiding as an anonymous coward.

"Open-source" means that you get the source code along with the package

Sigh. For about the millionth time, Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

Don't you mean "the source is open, but it's not Open Source" ?

The source is public, but it's not open source. Similar to DJB's software (though Povray's license admittedly is much more generous than that).

It's not *closed* source if you can download the source; if you mean "it's not GPL", why not say that?

The OSI approves many more licenses as open source, including for example the LGPL, BSDL, Apache Software License, Mozilla Public License and the Apple Public Source License. The reason for this is simply that they fulfill the OSI's definition

Don't you mean "the source is open, but it's not Open Source" ?

The source is public, but it's not open source. Similar to DJB's software (though Povray's license admittedly is much more generous than that).

It's not *closed* source if you can download the source; if you mean "it's not GPL", why not say that?

The OSI approves many more licenses as open source, including for example the LGPL, BSDL, Apache Software License, Mozilla Public License and the Apple Public Source License. The reason for this is simply that they fulfill the OSI's definition

POV-Ray is not open source according to the generally recognized definition of open source.

Satisfied?

BzzzzT!

Wrong!

This is a common misperception.

Mind you, I'm not talking about Mr. Joe Blow.

I'm talking about the people Mr. Joe Blow works for. There are plenty of linux consulting shops that will develop an end-to-end solution for you.

Their service tends to be outstanding, but of course there are always exceptions.

And, if you read my post, instead of just pounding reply, you would notice that I indicate there is survey evidence among IT professionals and business managers in an IT related field regarding the 'favorability' of MS versus OSS, and these surveys generally paint MS in a poor light.

Not just among slashbots mind you.

Yes, or course, the surveys were biased.

Biased by whom? Microsoft, of course. I was refering to that leaked microsoft memo released as the halloween Document #7.

Link here

Microsoft is fighting neck and neck in the image war, and at this moment in time, they are loosing.

That could change, of course, but don't count it on.

CTO are pissed of about the new MS licensing, constant MS patching, and dealing with the hassel when their WHOLE FRIGGIN NETWORK goes down. Not that it was unavoidable...But its still happenning. Even if MS releases the patches in time, networks keep going down.

And then there is the TCO battle.

You are wrong about this being a slashdot only thing. Linux really is getting to be well known in the business world.

Is everyone switching? No. But mindshare, and marketshare, are building.

Well, why not link SCO to something the reader gets real value from? Some page where they can learn something about SCO? After all, since those pages indeed tell something about SCO and therefore contain the word SCO, it should even be more effective.

Read at least the first sentence of the Open Source definition, please.

I also mean it's not "free software", but that term isn't as precisely defined, and some people (IMHO mistakenly) interpret it to mean merely "gratis software". The term "open source" was invented in order to act as a synonym for "free software" in this sense that did not have this ambiguity.

... Makes this software something from depths of hades. Can you enlighten me?

I never said that it was. I don't have a problem with that method of distribution. It's his software, he can require users of it to dance a jig before installing for all I care. I was just pointing out that by most definitions, it's not "Open Source" (see section 3). It's more of a look-but-don't-touch license.

Insightful? I think he was going for funny. ESR is the president of the OSI.
OSI Board of Directors

No, OSI does no have an endowment. The money for the OSAs is through corporate sponsorship which you can read about here.

You can always buy some Open Source Swag if you feel like helping out.

John.

Yeah, but if you'd actually like these projects to be considered for an award you need to nominate them, rather than posting in a /. comment.

It's not hard, all it takes is sending an email!

John.

See the Open Source Awards Charter for more details.

You can read the full details here but Merit Awards are given out four times a year, and Special and Grand Master awards once per year.

John.

License: Pick the one that best suits your project and how you expect people to use it (or not). Normally SF requires that you use one of the OSI approved licenses.. For example, if your application is a library (doesn't seem to be) then you wouldn't want to use the GPL; OTOH the GPL is normally fine for standalone apps. If you're not sure, talk to a lawyer.

Other than that, in SourceForge the trick is to categorize your project in the Software Trove very carefully. Otherwise people will have trouble finding it. I've found stuff in Freshmeat through Google that I couldn't find browsing the trove because the developer miscategorized his/her work.

No one will use your stuff if they can't find it.

Isn't it ironic that Microsoft has allowed two projects, WTL and WiX, to be released under the CPL? Evidently these have little value to the company (and by extension, the developer's are not valued.)

This is more FUD coming out of Microsoft, but that is stating the redundant.

For those of you who might not be familiar with what Wine actually is, let me clarify. Even though some of us enjoy a sip of wine every now and then, this is not what we are talking about today. We are referring to a package that allows Windows applications to run on Linux... outside of an emulator. Wine uses an open source Windows API (application programming interface) to allow modified Win32 binaries to run in a UNIX/Linux environment, completely free of Windows. Think of it not as an emulator, but more of a compatibility layer, or translator if you will. The status of the Wine project can be found here.

CodeWeavers is at the head of the pack in Wine development and deservedly so. They produce the most well packaged, capable distributions of Wine available. As Jeremy has stated, development is in the hands of their customer base and supporters. Whatever the customer wants the customer gets, and so it should rightfully be. Mr. White knows his business. You can see which applications are getting all of the attention at the CodeWeavers Top List page, and it's actually pretty interesting to see what apps are getting pushed to the top. Take a look.

Well, enough of the small talk, let's carry on with the interview. Enjoy!

Mad Penguin: First of all, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to sit down with us today to answer a few questions. I guess the first thing I'd like to know is more personal than anything... why Linux? What was the motivational factor(s) behind developing software to run Windows applications on Linux?

Jeremy White: Well, it's a fairly long story. I've always been a geek. I've loved programming on computers since I was 11 and had to sneak into the Radio Shack to do it, and I've also always loved computer games. Early in my career, I grew quite proficient at communications and networking programming. I was working on a project for a customer that had a Solaris system. But, they were across town, and I had to drive over there to work on it, and I couldn't afford a Sun of my own. So, instead, I installed and starting developing against Linux (circa 94 I'd say), and then just migrating the code once it was done.

So that's when I fell in love with Linux, and when we started having at least one Linux box around all the time.

Now fast forward to about 1997. One day, at lunch, I'm talking to a few new hires (young kids) that had never played the original Combat cartridge in an Atari 2600. This struck me as horrible
cultural illiteracy on their part, and so I set off to find an Atari 2600 emulator to correct this horrible flaw in their education. Along the way, I stumbled across the Wine project, and thought that it was the most audacious project I'd seen in a long time. I thought then (as I think now) that if Linux could become a truly Windows compatible operating system, it would allow for an explosion in new computing choices, and I'd get to feel like that kid at Radio Shack again.

Further, in 1996, I had founded CodeWeavers so I could do work I considered meaningful, challenging, and fun, and although we did some fun projects, I was really looking for a mission. Of course, I had a day job (and a young kid), so I couldn't really do much with Wine then. But I kept dreaming, and then one day, it being the 90s and all, I decided to pursue a business built around Wine and helping people port Windows software to Linux. I successfully landed some venture capital, asked a bunch of the Wine developers to come on board, and that's really how we got started on this mission.

MP: I'm interested in learning how quickly CodeWeavers evolved into the full-blown business it is today. Ho

The root of our disagreement seems to be over the definition of open source. There are 2, you are using one and I am using the other.

What the English words would naturally suggest is that "open source software" is software with sourcecode available.

The Open Source Definition is the definition endorsed by ESR, the guy who coined the term. This definition is almost exactly (but not quite) the same as The Free Software Definition endorsed by RMS, the guy who coined that term.

Man, this is a mess.

> You have no knowledge that this particular instance was instigated by Microsoft.

No, I don't. But then, I didn't say it was.

I said, "false claims, planted by partners _like_ Toqueville."

Of course, we do have evidence from the past of Microsoft trying to defraud the public:

> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.

There is more evidence in the DR-DOS case, and the Bristol case.

> Microsoft has not, to the best of my knowledge, conducted a "secret hardware" campaign or anything of the sort.

On the contrary, Microsoft was caught planning this in The Halloween Document:

> "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."

Did you think that only meant Internet protocols? Of course not. Microsoft meant every protocol they could get their hands on, including hardware, networks, multimedia, authentication protocols, business transactions -- you name it.

> Absurd. This [locking in Linux] isn't even remotely plausible.

Of course it's plausible.

It's true that Microsoft can't lock us in as long as we are using Open Source (esp. GPL'd) software.

And that's why Microsoft, working through secret partners, is trying to trick us into making our Linux systems dependent on proprietary software.

Shortly after Microsoft made a deal with NVidia for the Xbox, NVidia hired the developers of the Open Source NVidia drivers, stopped their work on those drivers, and had them build closed source, proprietary drivers instead. Then, after Microsoft made a deal with ATI for the Xbox, ATI also cut back on their support of the Open Source driver developers, and ATI released closed source drivers.

Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to believe that Microsoft is up to their old tricks.

And let's not forget that the PC was once an open platform, just like Linux. Microsoft couldn't change that either, so, instead, Microsoft made every PC user dependent on proprietary middleware, namely, Windows.

It is obvious that Microsoft would try the same tactic with Linux, by getting us to commit ourselves to proprietary middleware, such as non-GPL'd drivers and libraries.

> You have no evidence to back this up, numerous statements to the contrary from reputable people

It's true that I can't prove the Microsoft connection. It is an assumption based on Microsoft's past behavior. The connection between Microsoft and SCO is evidence (though not proof). There is other circumstantial evidence.

But then, I didn't claim those things were proven -- I repeatedly used the word "possible."

But what is undeniable is that using proprietary middleware locks you in. and NVidia's drivers, and the proprietary version of Qt, are proprietary middleware. It would be insane to assume that Microsoft would ignore those possible lynch pins.

In fact, some people say that Linux is already locked in to the proprietary version of Qt, due to the number of proprietary Qt-based applications on Linux. In their paper Conquering the Enterprise Desktop, a group of developers argued that Bruce Perens' UserLinux would have trouble succeeding, unless it included the Qt Library in its basic install, in order to support proprietary Qt applications:

> In practice, Qt has been overwhelmingly adopted for proprietary development given factors such as quality, features and available support

> Just one bit of [proof] would be enough for me to not think you are some insane zealot.

If you insist...

Evidence of sabotage and fraud in The Sun vs Microsoft case:

Memo to Bill Gates from the manager responsible for Microsoft's Java strategy:

> When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns....

> 1. What is our business model for Java?

> 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?

> 3. How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?

> 4. What are we doing to leverage/expose Windows to Java developers?

Microsoft's pricing strategy paper for its VJ++ development suite:

> The "strategic objective" of its new toolkit is to "Eliminate/contain cross-platform Java by growing the polluted Java market," "migrate and lock Java developers to Win32 Java," and ultimately to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."

Statement by a Microsoft vice president:

> I would explicitly be different -- just to be different.... [W]ithout something to pollute Java more to Windows (show new cool features that are only in Windows) we expose ourselves to more portable code on other platforms.

Another Microsoft memo:

> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.

Evidence of contract interference and extortion in The DOJ versus Microsoft case:

> "Content drives browser adoption, and we need to go to the top five sites and ask them, "What can we do to get you to adopt IE?" We should be prepared to write a check, buy sites, or add features -- basically do whatever it takes to drive adoption."

> Gates wrote, "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."

> In Waldman's words: Sounds like we give them the HTML control for nothing except making IE the "standard browser for Apple?" I think they should be doing this anyway. Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using it everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club.

Evidence of intentional destruction of standard protocols in the Microsoft Halloween Document:

> "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."

And so on.

There is so much evidence that this (sabotage, fraud, and extortion) is Microsoft's normal way of operating, that the "zealot" position is anyone who attempts to claim that Microsoft is honest.

As to what Microsoft is currently trying to do to defeat Linux, there was obviously some speculation there, which I indicated by repeated use of the word "possibly."

They're right up there with those Berkley Bastards.

Yes, it does. Unlike Sun, Microsoft chose an existing OSDN-approved license.

It's the same license, for example, that Eclipse uses.

OSI CPL
GPL compatiable
Common Public License Version 1.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.

The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.

For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

Baffling!
Microsoft has actually released open-source software.

The CPL was developed by IBM and is OSI approved.

OSI approved
more info

I have seen the Free software movement to be, at least in part, a backlash against the increasing oppression of poor protections of the public domain.

I don't see it that way, at least not primarily. I think as a whole it is the realization of an economic reality: that the proprietary software model cannot compete with any software that might be released without proprietary restrictions, and that noone can stop software from being released free of these restrictions, so there is far more sense in helping oneself by using (and contributing, if applicable) to Free software than using or producing closed.

I have concerns about the free software ferver waning should the legal intellectual monopolies ease their grip

I think you are seeing Free software more from as an ideological viewpoint than as a practical necessity. I encourage you to spend a little while looking at the Open Source branding effort for Free software for awhile, which emphasizes the practical benefits rather than the idealistic and ethical motivations. The "ferver" will not fade, because the vast majority of it is based on the pragmatic fact that the Open Source or Free model meets the needs of people and businesses better than the other. This won't change no matter how restrictive the intellectual monopolies are with their software; on the contrary, if they open up, all they are doing is increasing the amount of Free software in the world and contributing to the movement. And if they loosen up without fully opening things, they will still be outcompeted by the collaborative Free software model.

gain enough legal strength with such things as software patents to marginalize the movement.

Patents are still to be feared.

I think that if all protections were removed, these same influences would exert their power in less controlled ways.

What protections? All we have now is their "protection" of their alleged "intellectual property." If that were removed, what would happen would be they would discover even sooner that they cannot compete long term with Free software. As near as I can tell, there aren't any legal protections that are protecting "us" against "them."

I have not seen enough legal pushback to open up the intellectual monopolies and shorten the time periods. I fear that the greater power to make those decisions lies with those receiving the money and that the populace won't be moved enough to stand against it. It is a matter of incentive. The populace with little understanding of it's loss gets outweighed by the greed incentive of a selfish individual(s) to lobby the law. I think that laws have been placed that will never be taken back.

This is why I take a minarchist libertarian point of view. If the government is restrained in its very constitution from having these kinds of powers, then noone can lobby the government to take these actions. Government should exist only to protect us from outside threats, protect our rights from violation by fellow citizens, and enforce civil contracts. If government's power to grant special privileges, monopolies, etc. were completely abolished, there would be no point in lobbying government. Everyone would finally have, at last, the exact same rights as everybody else. The problem is too many people want to receive new "rights" at the expense of everyone else.

[...] "Open source software, also described as free software..." [...]

Whether we're talking about free speech or free lunch, "open source" does not necessarily mean "free" in either sense. Both the open source and free software movements have lengthy explanations for this.

We've seen what happens to those who trust Microsoft.

IBM and WordPerfect trusted Microsoft's promise of support for OS/2, and look what happened to them.

WordPerfect trusted Microsoft again when they moved to Windows, only to discover that Microsoft had kept the good API calls hidden, while the API calls provided to WordPerfect were slow and unreliable.

Go (the company) trusted Microsoft with their Pen Computing technology. Go is now suing Microsoft for having stolen that technology. Stacker also successfully sued Microsoft for having stolen Stacker's disk compression technology.

Sun trusted Microsoft, when Microsoft contracted to provide Java support on Windows. But, Microsoft had no intention of living up to their promises, as later shown by Microsoft's internal memos:

> When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns....
> 1. What is our business model for Java?
> 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?
> 3. How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?

Or, as a Microsoft marketing presentation put it:

> Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.

Of course, Java developers also trusted Microsoft, and here's another memo showing what Microsoft thought of that trust:

> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.

But none of this should surprise us. We've known exactly what Microsoft was planning, ever since the publishing of the Halloween Document:

> 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.

XAML is just Microsoft's decommoditized copy of Mozilla's XUL, or XML User Interface Language. If Microsoft had been honest about sharing standards, then Microsoft would have simply used XUL, which has become a published standard.

I think what Microsoft is really afraid of is that, by the time Longhorn and XAML come out (plus the two more releases to get them to work acceptably), Mozilla and XUL (and Gnome, and Mono) will have already filled the Internet-based application development niche. Thus, these Open Source technologies could end up doing to Longhorn what Apache did to IIS, and then it's bye bye Microsoft monopoly.

As a result, Microsoft is borrowing another page from their anti-Java strategy:

> We decided rather than trying to outrun sun at their game to change the rules.

Or, as Microsoft VP John Ludwig put it:

> Subversion has always been our best tactic... subversion is almost invariably a better tactic than a frontal assault... it leaves the competition confused, they don't know what to shoot at anymore...

True, but many people in the US elections community use the term "open source" in a generic way - meaning that the source code is openly viewable, not necessarily that the source code is available under an OSI-approved license. The knowledge is slowly spreading that the term "open source" actually does have a specific, defined meaning, but it's going to take time for everyone to learn this. Until they do, it's useful to be aware that people many not actually mean the official, OSI-type of "open source" when they use the term.

Stark Draper Open Source Rocketry Award

I hereby, and until notice to the contrary, endow the Stark Draper Open Source Rocketry Award. This prize will consist of 3 ounces of gold or the monetary equivalent going to the next amateur team launching a vehicle to a height in excess of 200 kilometers, which in my opinion qualifies as an open source entry. These funds will be disbursed at my sole discretion.

For a an entry to qualify as "Open Source", for purposes of this prize, the team launching a rocket must make available sufficient information in machine readable form via the web to create and launch a rocket the same as the entry which travelled to 200 kilometers. The entry description should also include a description of safety procedures used to launch the rocket in question. The entry description considered must be public domain or available under a license that qualifies as Open Source according to the Open Source Consortium. The manufacture of the rocketry entry should be accomplished by tools and materials that are readily available to the general public from multiple sources or are themselves Open Source.

My primary intent here is to create an award that encourages free distribution of detailed rocketry designs that can be refined by a number of individuals similar to the way Linux kernel development has harness the energies of a large team throughout the world. It is not my intent to encourage entrants to relinquish their rights to patent protection by publishing their inventions (though the act of publishing may have legal ramifications). Candidates for the Stark Draper Open Source Rocketry Award may be relinquishing substantial rights to maintain intellectual property via trade secrets (and may be relinquishing foreign patent rights if they haven't filed by the date they publish on the web). Entry descriptions may be "dual licensed" (i.e. the entry description may be available on the web via the GPL, but the entrant might still charge corporations for whom the GPL is not an acceptable license a fee to get this same material under some other license which might not be an Open Source license). I will be loose in my interpretation of what "Open Source" means for purposes of this prize (though I may endow a future prize with a tighter definition).

There are real difficulties in applying the Open Source model to amateur rocketry. I would expect that entries to this contest might be using rather different sets of tools and materials--many of which will have proprietary components. It is my hope here to provide some basic designs that will be ready when techniques like those described in Marshall Burns's "Automated Fabrication" or Eric Drexler's "Nanosystems", make creation of small runs of complex machines relatively inexpensive. Still, gcc didn't need the linux kernel and BSD kernels to be ready and useful. Nor did linux need availability of an Open Source design for a microprocesser to be manufactured in quantity to be useful. I expect that over time, we'll see standards emerge for Open Source rocketry designs. I intend to revise this award description to reflect these standards as they emerge (for example, I can imagine that we might eventually want to specify that some specific Open Source tool describe the design and assembly of a rocket when we can assume that the lion's share of rocketry amateurs have access to tools compliant with specific standards). I will give folks advance warning of any such changes so that this minimally affects work that is in progress.

Background

My real goal in supporting space development is recreating the pos

I really don't get it. Why is it better to write an application that works on linux than to try and make a platform that can utilize both linux and windoze apps?

As long as the aforementioned platform is free as in Willy, who cares anymore? The whole point of the excercize was to be freed from the constraints of the evil kingdom in Redmond, right?

So if you can run windows apps without windows, you're free, right?

Why is Samba good for providing linux-windoze compatibility and suchlike, but this Canadian linux bad for providing (allegedly, I haven't tried it so I don't know for sure) the capability to run windoze apps on linux bad?

Sounds to me like a bad case of "blame Canada"

There are other reasons to stop prepending things to the OS name, by the way...

My take on this : Stallman (who recently did a speech in my area, and didn't forget to tell us that ``GNU is the operating system and Linux is its kernel'' amongst other questionable things, like Open Source is not about freedom. He must have overlooked the Open Source Definition...) has seen the Linux OS gain lots of attention, and he's disgruntled people talk less about the GNU project. Still, he's wrong in thinking this causes problems for GNU or the FSF : quite to the contrary, the number of people that have started writing (or even hearing about) free software because of Linux has greatly helped the GNU project approach the goal of having a computing environment made only of free software. He should be grateful of this. Instead, he's obsessed with safeguarding a message he thinks is ``suppressed'' and churns out non-free licenses (like the GFDL) for this purpose (I'd be insterested in seeing only one occurrence of a distributor removing philosophical texts from the GNU documentations. I don't think this ever happened). That's sad, and not very positive, IMHO.

why don't we see what someone from Microsoft has to say?

The "Halloween" documents the partent is referring to are leaked memos from Microsoft that give an inside look at the way MS conducts itself when noone's watching. The whole series can be found here. If you've never read them, I highly recommend you spend a few minutes taking a look. Very insightful stuff. =]

• The GNU docs
• (half way down) The OSIs docs on the question

The list of licenses that make something Open Source is here.

While there are some Sun licenses on the list, the Sun Community Source License (which Java source is provided under) is NOT.

This is not an opinion question. This is a fact. Java is NOT Open Source. It is not a little Open Source, or almost Open Source. Open Source is a binary state. It is, or it isnt. Java IS NOT.

The open source definition includes "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" specifically to head off such misguided ideas.

Besides, Microsoft doesn't need Sun's source code to fork Java. They have enough people to write a VM from scratch. Or they could use Kaffe.

Maybe there needs to be a distinction between and Open Source License and an Open Source Development Process.

Open Source software is based on a development process. You are asking for a distinction between Free Software and Open Source software witch does exist, but is often confused.

Seriously not trolling.

Care to point out a tiny sample of "most" Open Source that follows this norm?

In the interest of being taken seriously I will point out a few that I know of that seem rather well thought out:
fltk
FOX
gcc
Oh yeah, here
and others

You were modded informative yet I see nothing informative in your post. Perhaps because I have contributed to some of these projects and I am jaded? Perhaps because more work gets done in these projects than the corporate arena of closed source that I used to work in and I might be close minded and missing your point? It's a possiblity but I will try to become openminded in case I missed the informative part of your post.

This is pretty simple to sum up in my mind. Although my desktop is still running windows at work, at home I rarely see it.

But when asked the question why I have moved to Open Office from Microsoft Office, and why I have moved to Linux from Windows, what is the answer?
It's mostly about rights and freedom. I'm not yet willing to admit that I am a full out FSF supporter, though I have been a supporter of the Open Source movement. Microsoft's licensing tactics (and not just theirs but the general tactics of many other folks have led me as far away from proprietary "treat-the-custer-as-a-theif" software as I can possibly get.
Linux is great, and it has been an incredible learning experience (I've honestly never felt so dumb sitting in front of a command prompt as I did during my first Gentoo installation).

I was never a *NIX user. I never had any desire to run anything other than Windows because I was happy with the product.

But they forced me to look elsewhere, and when I did I learned what I was missing.
So IMO, what lies ahead for linux is more users...and I don't believe that is limited to the server. From the desktop side, the strides that have been made in KDE and GNOME in the last couple of revisions have made them dramatically nicer to work with. From the server side...not having to have a GUI running on a server is quite a bit more efficient.

Back in the day I remeber Microsoft recommending you change the screen saver to the black screen instead of one of those OpenGL screen savers on your Windows NT SQL server because the screen saver would bury your processor. I couldn't help but think why do I have this huge GUI running on what is supposed to resemble a somewhat powerful database server?!!

Looks pretty Open & Free stuff to me.
including a licence that's FSF and OSI approved

The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement.

I was using the phrase "open source" in the early 90s to describe changes in the software world. I remember having a conversation with a client around 1991 who wanted me to modify a program. I explained that while many early programs written in interpreted languages (BASIC, DBase3+) were open source, most current programs were closed source, and the effort to modify them was enormous and probably illegal. I did not use the term "open source" until the contrast with "closed source" programs was needed.

I used "open source" around 1996 to describe HTML and JavaScript. Someone wanted me to hide the code for their web site, and I told them that was impossible because all the code on the web had to be open source so browsers could see it.

The new definition of "Open Source" is from the 1998, and describes a political movement that wants programs to be open source.

---
"free software" could be used without paying for it. The next level was "shareware" with its free trial, but please pay. Then "commercial" with pay now and hope you like it.

"Free Software" is a political movement that wants programs to be open source, and somehow prevent commercial programmers from using any of the code in closed source programs.

---
I do not understand the controversy about Java. Sun owns the trademark. They allow others who fit their standards to use the trademark. IBM wrote their own compiler, and there are others.

Applets and applications are usually easily decompiled; they are not truly open source, but the well-defined interpreted language makes it difficult to hide code. Servlets are not distributed, so it is more difficult to read the code. Code from most Java programs will easily fit into other projects, so sharing is easy. I like that I can use the same code in a browser, on a web server, and on a desktop just by changing the interface.

The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard.

Anyone can write software using Java without paying for any software. Anyone can write a Java compiler, and can get it approved for some money or tons of public relations. So Java is a free standard. But Sun controls it, so it is not an open standard.

Will there be an "Open Standards" organization that wants all standards to be open soon? Or is that implied by the "Open Source" movement?

If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open".

Either you meant "open" or you are mistaken. Open with a capital "O" refers to Open Source, the meaning of which can be found here.

Briefly:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

As an example, most of Microsoft's open source work is not Open Source, as it typically places restrictions on derived works and redistribution.

Linux is doomed.

There, I said it. I'll say it again: Linux is doomed.

I am an incredibly good C programmer. I wrote a driver for my employer's modem software, and I submitted it to the kernel. The "administrators" rejected it because it "might not be free enough." They insisted that I pore over 37 densely-worded pseudo-legalese licences before submitting it.

Could I use the Vovida Software License? Ooh, and then there's the Motosoto License! Let me get this straight: you have a team of pretend lawyers insisting that such and such is "free enough," and you wonder why nothing's getting done.

Fuck that. I'm going with Microsoft. They know what to do with free software.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Bitter Developer

Scribus is a desktop publishing program for Unix and Linux which has been gathering momentum recently. SuSe now proudly proclaim that with SuSe 9.1, Professional layouts can be prepared with the desktop publishing application Scribus. Scribus is also recieving critical acclaim from other big open source quarters such as Newsforge who recently proclaimed Scribus to be one of Free Software's Killer Applications.

ut what is Scribus really like? Can anyone just pick it up and use it? Is it really as powerful as they say it is? And does it live up to the hype surrounding it?

About ScribusScribus is a desktop publishing program for Unix and Linux. It is built with the Qt libraries and is run natively in the KDE desktop environment. Scribus is published under the Gpl and is similar to similar to Adobe PageMaker, QuarkXPress or Adobe InDesign. Scribus has an unusually small development team and is mostly the work of a German programmer called Franz Schmid. The Scribus team are positioning the program as an easy to use DTP publishing program for the Linux and Unix operating systems with support available for professional publishing features. These professional publishing features include:

• CMYK Colour

• Press Ready PDF Creation
  • Further advanced PDF features for making interactive PDFs exist together with a large amount of support for the PDF 1.4 specification including:
  • Transparency
  • Encryption
  • Form Field
  • Annotations
  • Bookmarks

EPS and PDF import/export

Complete ICC colour management

Font embedding and sub-setting in both postscript and PDF exportIn addition to this Scribus also provides:

• A WYSIWYG viewpoint for document creation
• An XML based file format allowing for easier file recovery if corruption occurs
• Drawing tools for custom shapes including: lines, curves, ellipses, bezier curves, polygons, etc.
• Drag'n'drop with KDE 3, including a Drag'n'drop scrapbook for frequently used items such as text blocks, logo images, backgrounds etc

As can be seen Scribus certainly isn't devoid of features, and there are many others in the program which I haven't described above. All in all, Scribus is a fairly feature rich program and more features such as importing from Microsoft Office and OO.org are expected in future releases. Installation of Scribus

I installed Scribus by going to the download section of the Scribus homepage in order to obtain the latest version which at this moment in time is 1.1.6. There are several different methods of installation available, including source and prepackaged files. Prepackaged files are available in the form of RPMs for Red Hat 9, Fedora Core 1 and SuSe 9, Deb files are also available for Debian users.

Since I'm using Fedora Core 1 I downloaded the RPM from the site and installed it. I used the Scribus website instead of a Fedora Yum repository as I have only been able to find out of date versions of Scribus on them. When installing the RPM I did encounter a dependency issue in which I needed to install a program called

what's the case against MS?

So far, that Baystar, one of the major sources of financing for SCO, did so at the behest of Microsoft. (The other major source of funding is a Canadian bank acting for unnamed private parties.) And that, Mike Anderer, the consultant who is "S2" wrote a subsequently leaked memo discussing how SCO was obtaining >$80M in funding (mostly indirectly) from MS.

So you needed a license model that does NOT allow sharing between REAL open licenses but looks open enough.

The Open Source Initiative thinks the CPL is "open". It allows derivitive works, grants no-royalty patent licenses to recipients (although only specifically for the program they receive), and allows source redistribution. It doesn't require source redistribution, but then neither do several other "open" licenses.

So what's the problem?

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

John.

There will be no such mark, although a couple competing factions at one time thought they had it sewn up. It was ultimately determined that "Open Source" (with or without the hyphen) is too descriptive to qualify for trademark protection. See this OSI press release and this earlier release from Software in the Public Interest. Google around a bit and you'll see there was much unpleasantness around the issue several years ago.

Someone really should have trademarked the term "Open-Source". It would lend a little bit of weight for going after those who abuse the term.

Open Source Initiative has made available the OSI CERTIFIED mark to refer to programs published under approved licenses, all of which match the Open Source Definition.