Slashdot Mirror

You're putting words in my mouth. I can name a license which does allow that--the BSD license.

The BSD license says you must give credit to the original author, you must keep the disclaimer, and you must not use the original author's name to endorse the product (there are other minor things, like if you make a binary release you still have to have the above visible to users in some way). All of these are also conditions of the GPL, and the BSD license makes no restriction as to adding clauses. So I can re-release BSD code, comply with the terms of the BSD, and add other clauses, to form the GPL.

I agree with you, but I think that some people can get angry when code under the bsd licence is used in a closed source project (case in point: OpenBSD in Windows Server 2003). If you are interested in the multitude of "officially" open-source licences, look at opensource.org/licences

Oops, I linked to the Microsoft letter. Here is the Peru congressman's reply. Specifically, here's a good summary:

"To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*."

Companies should be legally required to disclose vulnerabilities to government, with stiff penalties for failing to do so. It should also be made available via the Freedom of Information Act because we have a right to know that our information is being protected.

What's next? Microsoft doesn't disclose a vulnerability in SQL Server and the IRS database is leaked to hackers?

This is just one more reason why we need Open Source in government. The official in Peru who blasted Microsoft over closed source got it right. The citizen's right of information protection comes first and this can only be achieved through Open Source software, where every citizen has the right to make sure their data is being handled properly.

Closed source products have no business in government (or really anywhere for that matter) and should be outlawed.

Perhaps we should come up with a "Copy all you want, we won't sue!" logo or seal for Open Source and/or Free Software?

There already is: OSI Certified(tm) open source software.

He coined the phrase "Open Source".

Minor nitpick - it wasn't ESR, it was Chris Peterson. Says so right here.

I think that the Open Source movement is approaching a crossroads where the failure to have reached a viable consensus over what a proper license should be will seriously impede the future of software synergy and integration that the OS world so desparately needs.

While there are certainly more free/open source licenses than would be neccessary (and the OSI is at least trying to prevent this from getting worse, by not accepting new licenses if there isn't a convincing reason why no existing license can be used), there is that one big schism that cannot be resolved by license consolidation: Copyleft or not copyleft.

You will never make a GPL-user switch to a non-copyleft license, because he simply does not want proprietary software vendors to use his code. Likewise, you will never make a BSD-user switch to a copyleft license because they want anyone to be able touse their code for every purpose whatsoever, including proprietary software vendors. The fundamental reasons to hack on open-source code are just very different, and I think talking of both as one community is just plain wrong more often than not. (Of course, both camps are not a homogenous community of their own either.)

It seems they said long ago in their Halloween Documents that "The lack of singular, customer-focused management has resulted in the unwillingness to compromise between the different initiatives and is evident of the management costs in the Linux process."

In my opinion, this recent XFree86 (and now Apache) business is further proof that Microsoft was right about this. I'm not trying to bash open source as a whole--I am a big Linux fan. However, I think this problem MUST be solved if the OSS community is to move forward. We cannot go on having endless fragmentation of projects, proliferation of different (non) standards and forks and everyone-going-their-own-way. A truly usable desktop OS's bread-and-butter is its ability to have truly inter-operable (dare I say this--horizontally integrated) components.

Just my 2 cents worth.

That's the kind of attitude that is going to pit the GPL community against everyone else. GPL is not the only license in town. Do you intend to imply that all of these other contributors are persona non grata?

i am the lead developer of an open source game,Fmorg and somehow these arena unlimited people got my emailaddress, and sent me THIS....

First, let me apologize if the e-mail was unwanted. Your e-mail address is listed on the Fmorg project page and we thought you might be interested in what we're doing.

this sounds like a sort of scam to get us OO & indie game developers into some kinda contract on the off chance our game hits it big, and creates a demand for this crap

Second, we're not a contract-based service. We don't charge or require anything from developers. Period.

Personally, I'm an advocate of and contributor to the Open Source community. As long as I have any input, games released under any approved license will never be required to pay licensing or developer fees to use our system.

We are constructing and offering a set of tools to be used at will by any developer who might benefit from the inclusion of such features. For example, if a developer wants to sell, say, cars to augment a racing game to help support development, etc., then we would like to help facilitate that in a convenient and secure manner. We don't have or want any say in setting the price. We're looking to support ourselves by collecting a small percentage of the sale (the majority of the revenue goes straight to the developer).

my personal recommendation, JUST SAY NO TO SUITS!! -Ted

We're really not suits, we promise! (If you don't believe us, then check out our pictures.) :-) So far the project has been entirely self-funded (all our cars are beaters and paid for if you don't count the repair bills -- by the way does anyone have a spare alternator for '92 MX-3?). Our biggest hurdle to date (aside from trying to find Other People's Money) is tearing ourselves away from BZFlag and Armagetron long enough to get some work done.

But if you feel violated by our approach, I sincerely apologize. I hope you continue work on Fmorg with our without our help, as it looks very promising.

The real problem is the addition of the advertising clause, as found in the original (GPL-incompatible) BSD license. They've tried to "update" the advertising clause by allowing it to be satisfied by including of an acknowledgement message in the software itself, but still many people will find that annoying unclear, and unnecessarily redundant. And probably GPL incompatible.

They published some source, but used a "Microsoft Research Shared Source License Agreement". I don't know whether anyone has rigorously examined whether this license is compatible with the Open Source Definition, but I find it unlikely (it's even worse than the NPL, prohibiting any commercial use among other things).

What like the Open Source Awards?

BitTorrent has not yet been nominated.

John.

My friends, I know we all want Open Source to succeed. However, it has come to my attention that the amount of attention being lavished on Linux by the community at the expense of BSD ignores one key advantage that the vernerable OS from Berkeley has over everyone's favourite from Finland.

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

How can you take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these?! Would you buy software from them? Would you even walk on the same side of the street as them?! I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

``I thought that the whole point of open source is so nobody can take the software, change it, and then sell it as their own.''

You're confusing things. Open source means that you _can_ modifiy the software, and sell it. (See the open source definition.)

Depending on the license, you can even redistribute software without the source code. The MIT license and BSD license, for example, allow you to do pretty much anything you want with the code, as long as you retain the copyright license.

Copyleft is the requirement that software is free, and remains free. This is what is expressed in the GPL. This is also known as the GPL's "viral nature", because it requires derived works to be released under GPL if they are redistributed.

``I thought that the whole point of open source is so nobody can take the software, change it, and then sell it as their own.''

You're confusing things. Open source means that you _can_ modifiy the software, and sell it. (See the open source definition.)

Depending on the license, you can even redistribute software without the source code. The MIT license and BSD license, for example, allow you to do pretty much anything you want with the code, as long as you retain the copyright license.

Copyleft is the requirement that software is free, and remains free. This is what is expressed in the GPL. This is also known as the GPL's "viral nature", because it requires derived works to be released under GPL if they are redistributed.

``I thought that the whole point of open source is so nobody can take the software, change it, and then sell it as their own.''

You're confusing things. Open source means that you _can_ modifiy the software, and sell it. (See the open source definition.)

Depending on the license, you can even redistribute software without the source code. The MIT license and BSD license, for example, allow you to do pretty much anything you want with the code, as long as you retain the copyright license.

Copyleft is the requirement that software is free, and remains free. This is what is expressed in the GPL. This is also known as the GPL's "viral nature", because it requires derived works to be released under GPL if they are redistributed.

Will this affect the popularity of the GPL? XFree86 is using a different license, as is Apache...

will this put off others using the GPL, and encourage them to use a license of their own creation that best suits their needs?

Or how about this trademark? It appears on copies of works that the Open Source Initiative has certified by approving their licenses. Or does the mark mean "copydown"?

I am reminded of what Microsoft said 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."

This new patent scheme also explains why, in any discussion of the use of Open Source by governments, some poster always pops up and says, "We don't need Open Source in government, we only need Open Standards."

I guess the idea is that Microsoft's Office XML would still qualify as an "open standard" even though only Microsoft could use it.

The sooner Microsoft is crushed, the better off we will all be.

Does anyone remember a leaked internal Microsoft memo about using 'insider' to fight against Linux. [...] Can anyone find that story I mentioned earler ?

Haha. That's absurd. Making up a loose analogy to fit your world view doesn't make it true.

BSD-licensed code is still free, and its liberty is preserved. If someone takes the code and builds their own private codebase upon it, they haven't removed the original code, they've simply expanded upon it and chosen not to share their modifications for whatever reason. This is their choice, they are not obligated to give back; and the contributor of the original code agrees that this is OK, hence the choice of license. The same third party can also contribute improvements back. That's freedom!

Choosing a GPL license because you believe your contribution for others' benefit warrants reciprocation is not the opposite of the above, it is simply another manifestation of freedom. You choose to use your license, the user of your code chooses to accept it. No natives, no woods, no silly open-ended analogies.

BSD is free like this.

GPL is free like this.

Haha. That's absurd. Making up a loose analogy to fit your world view doesn't make it true.

BSD-licensed code is still free, and its liberty is preserved. If someone takes the code and builds their own private codebase upon it, they haven't removed the original code, they've simply expanded upon it and chosen not to share their modifications for whatever reason. This is their choice, they are not obligated to give back; and the contributor of the original code agrees that this is OK, hence the choice of license. The same third party can also contribute improvements back. That's freedom!

Choosing a GPL license because you believe your contribution for others' benefit warrants reciprocation is not the opposite of the above, it is simply another manifestation of freedom. You choose to use your license, the user of your code chooses to accept it. No natives, no woods, no silly open-ended analogies.

BSD is free like this.

GPL is free like this.

From one to three Merit Awards will be given out at or near the end of each quarter.

FFII might get my merit award.

No FLOSS - organisation had done more for Open Source Lobbying in 2003. They smashed the EU software patent legislation while the OSI kept silent, OSI even announced they were not opposed to software patentability: "The Open Source Initiative does not have a position on whether ideas can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of the related controversies. We think the economic self-interest arguments for open source are strong enough that nobody needs to go on any moral crusades about it."
So who works against us?

These are the Merit award winners. The Grand Master and Special Awards be announced at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention.

That having been said, these projects definitely deserve their awards. I only have experience with VideoLAN, and it's an awesome piece of software.

The committee allows nominations from the public any time, here, so go nominate your favourite project or Open Source person today! ;)

The Halloween Documents or more specifically Halloween IX: It Ain't Necessarily SCO

The Halloween Documents or more specifically Halloween IX: It Ain't Necessarily SCO

Do us all a favor and use the MIT license or something similar. The GPL has nothing to do with freedom. Roderick Long speaks the truth when he explains that selling someone else's work without their permission is NOT a violation of their rights. Instead he describes it as "tacky".

or licensed in a way that makes them uninteresting to most free software developers (like Helix)

I used to work as an open-source developer with the helix engine (still do, in fact), and didn't find the licensing to be that much of a turn-off. It's kinda like the NPL, or the GPL with the special rights for the Licensor outlined in section 3.

You can read the Helix license mentioned in the article here: RPSL

The WMA format is just one example of what Microsoft said they were going to do in the Halloween Document, where a Microsoft analyst states:

> Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities

> Generally, Microsoft wins by attacking the core weaknesses of OSS projects.

> De-commoditize protocols & applications

> 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.

Microsoft has used the same strategy in the past, for example, with the Windows APIs, or J++.

And let's not forget Microsoft famous lock-in coup with the undocumented MS Office file formats.

Microsoft protocols are poison -- they are intended to create dependency and lock-in.

It is unfortunate that a large percentage of the masses are willing to use WMA, because they are too ignorant to see the danger.

Depending on your application, you really should run the best Operating System for the Job. I haven't found the one perfect OS yet. For instance if you are running Java app servers you might want to look at Linux for that as it's java implementation seems to be better( but FreeBSD's is getting there quickly). The nice part is it free and you can just grab The ISO's and try it out on a spare machine.

This means that every company with the slightest interest in Linux needs to read up on the truth behind this tragical rubbish SCO serves us all! Start some proactive work by letting your managers read the OSI paper and whatever else they want from Groklaw and this list. Challenge anyone who claims this is the work of Linux zealots to come up with anything resembling proof coherent with the delusions of SCO.

Convince your managers before they get a letter!

I'm sure most of the biggies like Google and other mentioned companies know, but a mid-sized company with sufficient bueraucracy may be intimidated and pay before the trial is up, which will feed back into SCOs ugly propaganda machinery!

Let's show the world how Open Source cooperation is able to unveil the SCO scam and innoculate against it! When the trial is over we'll see who's still standing and who has to bleed cash...

Funny, but interestingly enough, hit #2 is the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint.

It's kinda hard to keep up your FUD when the opposition papers fall right next to your website on a general search. Too bad Groklaw isn't up there at #3.

What to do? I confess I don't know. It'd be nice for Linux/FOSS to maybe have an associated legal entity tasked with promoting Linux/FOSS in the market and protecting Linux/FOSS in the law. Ideally, a not-for profit organization. (A honest to goodness charity would be better, at least your legal defense contributions would be a tax deduction...)

I think we all know of a couple of organizations that when put together sorta fit your description: first the Free Software Foundation. Eben Moglen in fact has been enforcing the GPL quietly for quite some time. As for promoting Linux/FOSS in the market, that's done by another organization, the the Open Source Initiative. The only problem is that the philosophical differences between the two camps make it difficult for them to collaborate at the level you hope they could... Yes, they can collaborate on writing software, but promoting FOSS in the market and defending it from messes like SCO requires that they find a philosophical middle ground of some kind. :(

The OSI is a non-profit corporation, while the FSF is actually an honest to goodness charity. Both of them, if they could work together at a deeper philosophical level, could be just the type of organization you describe.

I use personally use Linux to get away from the liscensing nonsense that MicroAppleSunSoft tries to cram down my throat and sockets.

I use personally use Linux to get away from the liscensing nonsense that MicroAppleSunSoft tries to cram down my throat and sockets.

I found the article...
It's Halloween 7
-t

I respect RMS for his work and some of his views, but I think that his notion that only OSS is right contracdicts his beliefs. By saying everybody should shun non-FS he's limiting their freedom of choice is he not.

No, that's just silly. If I tell you that shouldn't spend so much time on Slashdot I'm not limiting your freedom of choice, I'm trying to convince you to change your viewpoint. RMS is just trying to spread his view point. If RMS is elected to government and starts passing laws forcing the use of Free Software, I'd agree with you, but not quite yet.

(And your statement that RMS's belief is "only OSS is right" suggests it time to re-read "Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'". RMS does not promote OSS and feels that OSS is a regrettable step backward.)

I have always seen FS/OSS as choice rather then a need. I introduce people to it and leave them to choose if they want to use it or not. I think the FS should promote Freedom of Choice when using software, and point out the advantages of choosing FS rather then promoting using only Free Software to promote freedom.

Perhaps you'll find the beliefs of the Open Source Initiative more in line with yours. This is a key reason that Free Software and Open Source Software are slightly different (if often allied) camps. The Free Software camp (to the extent you can point to such a beast) has always placed a high value on the morality of the situation.

I totally disagree. RMS *started* the Free Software movement and can promote it in whatever way he wants. In my opinion he's doing a pretty good job at it. :) If you don't like it, you can start your own movement. Someone else already did.

``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.

Closing free software to commercial entities is an idea roundly rejected by modern free software thinkers.

I suppose you may have been trying to be funny but I'm not sure...

The OSI which approves the GPL is the Open Source Initiative.

OSI, as an OSI 7-layer model, stands for Open Systems Interconnect and the standard is set by the International Organization for Standardization (I guess IOS was already a Cisco trademark or something...).

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.

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.

Open content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Open content, coined by analogy with open source, describes any kind of creative work (for example, articles, pictures, audio, video, etc.) that is published under a non-restrictive copyright license and format that explicitly allows the copying of the information. (An example is the GNU Free Documentation License, which is used by Wikipedia and Nupedia.) "Open content" is also sometimes used to describe content that can be modified by anyone. Of course, this is not without prior review by other participating parties--but there is no closed group like a commercial encyclopedia publisher which is responsible for all the editing.

Just as open source software is sometimes described simply as Free Software (not to be confused with Freeware), open content materials can be more briefly described as free materials. But not every open content is free in the GNU GPL sense (for instance the Open Directory). Some licenses attempt to maximize the freedom of all potential recipients in the future, while others maximize the freedom of the initial recipient. See public domain, free content, free software movement, copyleft.

I'm trying to be fair. My contention is that a company which just develops and sells open source software is doomed to fail.

Yes, I realise that now. Although... well, you're sort-of-kind-of trying to redefine the point of the argument in your terms, to the point that it doesn't really become much of an argument anymore. You're doing a bit of the No True Scotsman argument, tangled up with a few other things.

What I think you're saying (putting it in my terms instead, which is always fun :-) is that a company whose only source of income is from the "sale" (see below) of open-source software (by the OSI definition) will not make enough money to cover their costs of development, let alone make a profit. Well... yeah, that's probably correct. But you don't even need to use the term "open-source" software there, you can be much more generic. How about:

"anyone who tries to survive

only by selling stuff that they also make available for free, and that anyone else can (a) duplicate and redistribute freely, (b) enhance (or not) freely, and (c) sell or redistribute at any price (including zero).... will fail."

True? Yeah, probably. Only you're not casting nasturtiums-by-association at open-source software businesses anymore when you put it like that :-).

On a related line - remember of course that referring to the "sale" of software is a very loaded and misleading term. Microsoft sure as hell don't "sell" you software (or so they'd like you to think), they license you to use their software - under fairly limited terms - in exchange for a fee (or so they'd like you to think ;-).

And of course that doesn't just apply to Microsoft, it applies to just about any software company. I'm not sure what the legal status of software is in the USA at this moment, but I've heard enough stories about eBay disallowing resale of software products to make me think that consumer's rights with regard to software products are not very well established.

Back to quoting fmaxwell again:

I was not attempting to troll (you can probably tell that from my karma bonus and comment moderations).

Yep, I realised that after reading a few more of your comments. Just to make it clear, I don't think you're a troll anymore (I wasn't completely sure before). And you do argue your points lucidly and consistently and politely - for which you deserve praise, even if you are wrong. ;-)

I don't consider it open source to demand a fee from a user based on the intended use. That said, I'm not going to add it as a condition at this point.

I must admit it was sneaky of me to stick that in :), but I thought that that would probably fall under the category of special conditions you forgot to add to your list. :-)

I'm really trying to emphasise the point here of what you seem to be doing - you're narrowing the target so much that there's not really any point in using the term open-source software unless you're trying to do the guilt-by-association trick.

I mean, think again about what you're saying - you want examples of companies for which:

• their only source of income is through "sales" of their open-source software products (see above about the meaninglessness of the term "sale" wrt software, not to mention that any non-trivial company almost has to have more than one source of income),
• they provide free downloadable copies of said software products (ie. unlike the Kompany,

The RPL was designed in response to a feature of the GPL that allows a company to modify Open Source products and not disclose that changed product unless they distribute outside their organization. The resulting license is considerably more viral than the GPL-which means that many corporate users would want to buy the software under a commercial license.

The article talks about how nice it would be if companies offered to do additional programming on the OS software they use. This is nice, but is not required, assuming the software in question is GPL'ed. All that is required it that the licensee make an offer to provide source code if they distribute binaries outside their organization. If these companies are in compliance, there is no issue here and the article is just wishful thinking.

The Busybox Hall of Shame is a different animal altogether. These corporations are (supposedly/probably) not in compliance with the Busybox license. These are the *real* corporate bad guys, and the OS community should work to bring them into compliance, just like we did with Linksys et al.

Bottom line: if you want users of your software to do more than just make source code available, create a new license with contribution requirements. Its highly likely that such a license won't be truly open source and that no-one will want to use your software under such terms.

Open source entails no obligation by any individual or any company to make their product available gratis.

You better talk to The OSI people about that...

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.

Frankly, I agree with you. Unfortunately the inmates have been running the asylum and the concept of Open Source has been distorted by Stallman, Perens and others to mean Free as in "screw your ability to make money."

There have been good arguments leveraged for Open source, and having the source code available is certainly one of them. But the requirement that companies screw themselves pretty much kills the notion of open source as a business model.

Redhat clearly understands this, as they move towards a more proprietary model. Mandrake hasn't figured it out yet, as they move to losing more and more money.

1. The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for "free software" on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping.

1. The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for "free software" on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping.

Errm, pardon me, but who in holy hell are these UserLinux people and who's this Bruce Perens guy?

If you don't know that Bruce Perens is a former Debian Project Leader and the primary author for the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which was reworked into the OSI's Open Source Definition, a group he co-founded), or that UserLinux is his attempt to provide an DFSG-compliant reference distribution to high-priced Enterprise Linux solutions that can be developed and extended by Linux vendors, then why should I care who you are or why you felt the need to mindlessly babble on /. about a topic you admit you know nothing about?

I'm a GNOME user, but to be honest, I'm not losing any sleep over UserLinux's decision to pick GNOME over KDE because I'm not the target market for the distribution (although the use of GNOME means I may be more likely to look at early builds and see if I can contribute); Bruce has his goals, they're clearly outlined on the UserLinux site, and if can't come to some kind of accomodation with that, you're welcome to not contribute to the project.

Jay (=