Slashdot Mirror

"Open Source" is defined by the Open Source Definition, and this software doesn't even come close.

This code is called "disclosed source", since the source is disclosed, but not open.

Technically, it IS open source because

Absolutely not. "Open Source" (capitalized) is a trademark of OpenSource.org, and by their highly-publicized definition, it must allow the free redistribution of the code!

This license is closer to "shared source" (but maybe not as bad).

(I hardly need to point out that if you want to mislead people on Slashdot, you should pick a subject more difficult to research online)

Technically, it IS open source because

Absolutely not. "Open Source" (capitalized) is a trademark of OpenSource.org, and by their highly-publicized definition, it must allow the free redistribution of the code!

This license is closer to "shared source" (but maybe not as bad).

(I hardly need to point out that if you want to mislead people on Slashdot, you should pick a subject more difficult to research online)

Technically, it IS open source because

Absolutely not. "Open Source" (capitalized) is a trademark of OpenSource.org, and by their highly-publicized definition, it must allow the free redistribution of the code!

This license is closer to "shared source" (but maybe not as bad).

(I hardly need to point out that if you want to mislead people on Slashdot, you should pick a subject more difficult to research online)

The OSI approved SleepyCat license is used with a number of software projects including XAO Apache Web Services and the very widely used dual licensed Berkeley DB software products. The WayBackMachine has a WinterSpeak interview from 2001 with Sleepycat President & CEO, Michael Olson on How to make money with the GPL ...

Berkeley DB is embedded in network infrastructure products like routers and switches, DNS and Web content caches, email servers and clients, ... Companies like Cisco, Sun, HP, IONA, Amazon and Sendmail use Berkeley DB. Open source projects like Cyrus, Squid, RPM, Postfix, and MySQL include it.

The OSI approved Reciprocal Public License (RPL) while used infrequently is reportedly more viral than GPL, actually extremely viral per Technical Pursuit which dual licenses Tibet potentially requiring payment under TPL Biz licensing when not in compliance with RPL.

Are there other projects, licensing & circumstances of note that might be similarly surprising or problematic to OSS/FS users ???

The OSI approved SleepyCat license is used with a number of software projects including XAO Apache Web Services and the very widely used dual licensed Berkeley DB software products. The WayBackMachine has a WinterSpeak interview from 2001 with Sleepycat President & CEO, Michael Olson on How to make money with the GPL ...

Berkeley DB is embedded in network infrastructure products like routers and switches, DNS and Web content caches, email servers and clients, ... Companies like Cisco, Sun, HP, IONA, Amazon and Sendmail use Berkeley DB. Open source projects like Cyrus, Squid, RPM, Postfix, and MySQL include it.

The OSI approved Reciprocal Public License (RPL) while used infrequently is reportedly more viral than GPL, actually extremely viral per Technical Pursuit which dual licenses Tibet potentially requiring payment under TPL Biz licensing when not in compliance with RPL.

Are there other projects, licensing & circumstances of note that might be similarly surprising or problematic to OSS/FS users ???

The OSI approved SleepyCat license is used with a number of software projects including XAO Apache Web Services and the very widely used dual licensed Berkeley DB software products. The WayBackMachine has a WinterSpeak interview from 2001 with Sleepycat President & CEO, Michael Olson on How to make money with the GPL ...

Berkeley DB is embedded in network infrastructure products like routers and switches, DNS and Web content caches, email servers and clients, ... Companies like Cisco, Sun, HP, IONA, Amazon and Sendmail use Berkeley DB. Open source projects like Cyrus, Squid, RPM, Postfix, and MySQL include it.

The OSI approved Reciprocal Public License (RPL) while used infrequently is reportedly more viral than GPL, actually extremely viral per Technical Pursuit which dual licenses Tibet potentially requiring payment under TPL Biz licensing when not in compliance with RPL.

Are there other projects, licensing & circumstances of note that might be similarly surprising or problematic to OSS/FS users ???

Note that the Halloweed docs were a "secret" set of memos prepared by a top MS employee for Microsoft top management when they were developing their strategy against Linux. So it is certainly not biased in favor of open source!

Therefore, I think that the assertion that code forking is a "danger" which cannot be mitigated is wrongheaded. Rather, forking can be a problem, but can be managed by adjustment of the licensing agreement for the software.

I think this has already been studied-
The ability of the OSS process to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing. More importantly, OSS evangelization scales with the size of the Internet much faster than our own evangelization efforts appear to scale. -Microsoft, Microsoft Halloween Doc 1

I think there's a distinction in the cited article that a lot of the people replying to this post may be missing. The author's definition of "Open Source" does not match what most of us would call "Open Source." Here's a quote from the article:

"Management can determine if they want to make an Open Source project available to the public or keep it private."

The author writes this article from the position that "Open Source" simply means writing software using standards-based, collaborative development methods...even if the source is never made available to the public or even the end user.

I think the author describes a lot of good practices for writing software, but what he describes has nothing to do with what most of us would consider "open source" (and certainly not with the official OSI definition). The practices described could easily be used (and are used) by corporations to develop proprietary closed-source software.

OpenSource, ClosedSource, free as in free speech, free as in free beer, GPL, Linux are all being used in the wrong way.

You are right that the author is viewing OpenSource in the wrong way.

Unfortunately, he (and alot of other people) is getting his view from people trying to advocate OpenSource.

For example the traditional opposite of OpenSource is Microsoft. So therefore isn't OpenSource anti-Microsoft?

Another example is that GPL is OpenSource. Well not strictly http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.ph p

Any thing else than some person saying "Hey look at this spiffy neat-o code I created. Want to use it? Perhaps you can learn something from it." is really not OpenSource and is most likely the opinion of the speaker.

Clause 2.b of the GPL has been interpreted by everyone from Richard Stallman to Bruce Perens to mean that the larger the organization the less likely they are to publish derivative works because internal distribution is not covered under the GPL. Like many tax policies that penalize small businesses and favor conglomerates, the GPL is designed to encourage bureaucratic growth.

The RPL is more viral. The RPL requires that those who want to keep their derivative works private, find some other licensing arrangement with the authors. If some bureacrat wants to make viruses from free public technology, then he at least gets a viral public license.

Reality check, Red Hat:

We don't see ourselves competing against Microsoft.

Too bad for you, because Microsoft certainly thinks that Linux is its number one competitor. And don't kid yourself: they will do whatever is needed to crush you.

Oh, and if you think you can steal market shares from, let us say, Sun, without them making a fuss, I think you are mistaken too. Last time I checked, Sun is still worth more money than Red Hat...

I didn't write the RPL(it was written by Scott Shattuck at Technical Pursuit--but I helped with some of the legal research and also helped walk the license through the OSI approval process.

"PS: GnuPG is free software, not open source software.">

I'm afraid I, and the rest of the Free Software community disagree with you.

even if you use a freebsd system, they use quite a lot of gnu tools in their system. the only difference is that the code produced by the freebsd developers is licensed under the BSD license.

You can't legally copy open-source software any more than you can copy closed-source binary images.

Yes you can. What you describe is "available source", not open source. And no, you can't define open source to mean what you want it to mean, when the term of art is well understood to mean something completely different.

There really isn't any real reason why Microsoft couldn't make all their source code available.

Available yes, open no. Though no doubt by not making it available they make it harder for someone else to duplicate bug-for-bug functionality.

Opening up their source would also instantly get rid of the problem of some governments' requirements for open-source software.

Again, you're confusing open and available. Available source is less useful, since you can't create derivative works, can't cooperate on improving things. Governments are interested in more than available source gives them, including no licensing fees.

Interesting. They are misusing the term "open source," though. Open source doesn't just mean you get to look at the source code, although that is valuable.

By the open source definition, you can't have such a thing as "open source for developers." An open source license must not discriminate against fields of endeavor.

That goes against the open source definition clause 3 and 7. Clause 3 says

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.

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

In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.

According to Mandrake's site, they provide Mandrake Packs of Acrobat, Flash, Real, nVidia drivers, and other non-OSS software. Not 100% OSS.

That are the commercial boxes, e.g. the PowerPack edition. Yes, they accomodate people who prefer a commercial package for ease of use (no need to handle nVidia drivers etc. yourself) or other reasons.

The "100% OSS" applies to the Download editition (a comparison).

The latter is the one you can download for free. The former has been made available for download only for MandrakeClub members (silver and higher) and contributors as of ML9.2, and is sold as boxed set, too, of course.

But I doubt that Mandrake itself would use the 100% OSS label. IMHO, it's not really technically correct. They don't require all licenses to be OSI approved. AFAIK, they require the license to allow the software (source and binary) to be (re-)distributed freely on the the download edition. Which basically boils down to: the licenses usually fit into the OSI spirit, but aren't necessarily officially OSI approved.

I'm afraid you're not aware of what Open Source Software/Free Software is. Please read the definition of Open Source software: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code."

And of course Free Software.

Never flamed about Qt license in the past? ;-)

Signals and Slots are the metaphor of Qt, yes. And it's true that in order to use the GUI, you have to use the GUI library. It's also true that Qt is written in C++, but Qt apps do not have to be. KDE is an example - every KDE app is a Qt application, but they can be written in C++, C, Python, Perl and other languages. PyQt is quite a nice package. If you think you have to use C++ to program a Qt app, you're sorely mistaken.

Qtopia is also licenced under the same licence scheme as QT, dual licenced under the GPL and QPL. This sceme allows development of open source applications using the GPL and proprietary applications using the QPL after per-developer fees have been payed.

The QPL is a Open Source Inititive certified license. It gives you different rights than the GPL, but it is a very open and friendly license that meets all the OSI criteria. In addition, it's applicable to the full, freely downloadable Qt source. I.e., the QPL is another open source license you can use at no cost to write and distribute your software under, if you happen not to like the GPL.

You're thinking of the commercial license, which allows you to release your software under any license you care to make up. Binary only, EULAs, guarentees and warrantees (which are not allowed under the LGPL), patented algorithms (again, the LGPL does not allow these), etc. If you choose to abandon Open Source, be prepared to pay.

Thirdly in order to port the application to another platform, an activity in-keeping with the Free Software spirit, licence fees must be payed even for an open application.

Wrong. Qt is GPLed. It runs under Windows, OSX and other OSes. Qt for Windows is a different product entirely that has support for DirectX and other Windows specific features. Qt itself, however, runs just dandy on any modern OS, and the community has ported it to experimental and very niche OSes.

It should also be noted, since you're hitting on many of the famous Qt myths that if Trolltech were to go out of business or get bought out, not only will the GPLed code stay with the community, there is the KDE Free Qt Foundation, which mandates that in the event of a buy-out, merger, bankrupty or even lack of prompt releases, the latest codebase immedately reverts to the BSD licence.

--
Evan

How many software packages does the OSI provide?

The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to maintain software as such, but its president does. I count at least a couple dozen apps by Mr. Raymond alone; the web pages of other board members show their contributions. Notably, Michael Tiemann wrote G++, and Guido van Rossum wrote Python.

This has been a long time coming, from the looks of it--Many of you are probably familiar with the Halloween documents, "an internal strategy memorandum on Microsoft's possible responses to the Linux/Open Source phenomenon." This was back in 1998. MS verified the documents as authentic but claimed it was "a mere engineering study that does not define Microsoft policy."

They've probably been building up a case for a long time. But as Linux is systematically sound, they've apparently been forced to find specific, technical problems since their Ominously Vague Murmurs don't seem to be taking. The problem for them is whatever they pick is, by definition, fixable and not an element that defines Linux as Linux. Additionally, if you find 50 holes in Linux and 25 in, say, Windows Server 2003, that's not nearly as relevant as the average lifespan of the hole. With all the Linux distros, there may be dozens of holes at any given time, but there is only one Windows Server 2003. I challenge them to focus on one major distro.

Lastly, MS is has been coming off increasingly hostile and banging the "Linux BAD!" drum so obsessively, that they run the risk of sounding like they're accusing corporate Linux licensees of incompetence, rather than trying to merely educate them.

So is it just not possible for a group of Free Software programmers to be non-political?

Of course it is not possible since Free Software is a political movement in the first place and has been so since at least 1984. That is actualy the reason of the recent community fork in 1998. What you are looking for is Open Source.

"The license is Free as in FSF. Don't worry about it."

The GPL lists free software licenses, if you want to check their opinion on a license. Cougaar isn't listed.

The open source initiative also lists licenses which qualify to be called Free Software. Cougaar isn't listed.

Is Cougaar using one of the listed licenses, or has it been sent to GNU for analysis?

Cougaar folks, you need to get this fixed.

Do you mean leaked internal memos like the Halloween Documents?

Hoping this is not a troll, but according to Mr. Stallman / GNU.org, the BSD license (well, 'modern', non-advertising BSD) is explicitly compatible with GPL:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html# GP LCompatibleLicenses

However, Vice-Versa doesn't work (GPL "trumps" the BSD-ness of the other work, since the BSD is so permissive on what is possible to do with the code).

Here's a quick refresher for anyone who doesn't "get" the GPL: Don't think "Free Software" (like gratis, non-paying). Think "Libre Software" (like freedom). This is also said: "Free as in speech, not as in beer".

But the GPL is *not* freedom for the programmer, it's freedom for the source-code. Straight from the GPL...

"""
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
"""

The BSD license basically says: "Do what you want, just don't sue me"

And a recommendation for all budding software haxors out there... GET COPYRIGHT OF CONTRIBUTOR CODE SIGNED OVER TO YOU (as project admin / fearless leader). The FSF requires this for all their sponsored projects, and it doesn't even have to be exclusive rights to the contributions.

Basically, once software is GPL, if you accept a typo-bugfix under the GPL, and don't receive assignation of copyright for it (not really, because of various "minor edits" stuff, IANAL), then the whole project (even if you're the 99% contributor and author of everything else) is forever and eternally available under the GPL, and you can't close it back off or change the license without *getting* that assignation of copyright (often stated: "the genie is out of the bottle").

From an individual project perspective, if you don't care about the code, use BSD (but remember that people can jack it and use it without giving you credit). If you want to make sure that the code you've written is always available no matter how it's used in the future, use LGPL (hey, *your* code is always available). If you have an agenda, go with the GPL (because GPL forces users of your code to also use GPL).

Honestly, pure GPL is really annoying a lot of times, witness the readline libraries. Want decent text-input handling? Boom, whole application is now GPL. My app doesn't deal with input handling, it isn't a text-editor. I (personally) consider input handling to be a "solved problem", but I can't use GNU-readline in my FooBar software v1.0 without releasing all my source code.

Personally, I usually don't have a problem with that, but I consider it most impolite to future programmers who want to use the bricks that I've built by stating: Even though you built this house yourself (using GNU/Brick 4.3), you still have to let me come in whenever I want and take a crap on those fancy toilet seats that you put in.

BSD => no restrictions.

LGPL => source code to your contributions (your bricks) will always be available.

GPL => use my GNU/library so I can crap on your new (GNU?) toilet seat.

Any questions?

--Robert

Hoping this is not a troll, but according to Mr. Stallman / GNU.org, the BSD license (well, 'modern', non-advertising BSD) is explicitly compatible with GPL:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html# GP LCompatibleLicenses

However, Vice-Versa doesn't work (GPL "trumps" the BSD-ness of the other work, since the BSD is so permissive on what is possible to do with the code).

Here's a quick refresher for anyone who doesn't "get" the GPL: Don't think "Free Software" (like gratis, non-paying). Think "Libre Software" (like freedom). This is also said: "Free as in speech, not as in beer".

But the GPL is *not* freedom for the programmer, it's freedom for the source-code. Straight from the GPL...

"""
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
"""

The BSD license basically says: "Do what you want, just don't sue me"

And a recommendation for all budding software haxors out there... GET COPYRIGHT OF CONTRIBUTOR CODE SIGNED OVER TO YOU (as project admin / fearless leader). The FSF requires this for all their sponsored projects, and it doesn't even have to be exclusive rights to the contributions.

Basically, once software is GPL, if you accept a typo-bugfix under the GPL, and don't receive assignation of copyright for it (not really, because of various "minor edits" stuff, IANAL), then the whole project (even if you're the 99% contributor and author of everything else) is forever and eternally available under the GPL, and you can't close it back off or change the license without *getting* that assignation of copyright (often stated: "the genie is out of the bottle").

From an individual project perspective, if you don't care about the code, use BSD (but remember that people can jack it and use it without giving you credit). If you want to make sure that the code you've written is always available no matter how it's used in the future, use LGPL (hey, *your* code is always available). If you have an agenda, go with the GPL (because GPL forces users of your code to also use GPL).

Honestly, pure GPL is really annoying a lot of times, witness the readline libraries. Want decent text-input handling? Boom, whole application is now GPL. My app doesn't deal with input handling, it isn't a text-editor. I (personally) consider input handling to be a "solved problem", but I can't use GNU-readline in my FooBar software v1.0 without releasing all my source code.

Personally, I usually don't have a problem with that, but I consider it most impolite to future programmers who want to use the bricks that I've built by stating: Even though you built this house yourself (using GNU/Brick 4.3), you still have to let me come in whenever I want and take a crap on those fancy toilet seats that you put in.

BSD => no restrictions.

LGPL => source code to your contributions (your bricks) will always be available.

GPL => use my GNU/library so I can crap on your new (GNU?) toilet seat.

Any questions?

--Robert

1. Invoking a GPL program in a separate memory space from a proprietary program, sending it input, and reading output - OK under the GPL.
   
2. Packaging your proprietary programs with a GPL program - OK under the GPL.
   
3. Loading a GPL dynamic library and having your proprietary program invoke functions from it - Not OK under the GPL, but it is OK under the LGPL.
   
4. Statically linking a GPL library with your proprietary program - Not OK with the GPL, but some libraries have a waiver that allows precisely this, such as glibc.
   
5. Pasting GPL code into your proprietary program - Not OK under any GPL derived program.
   
6. Extending GPL coded classes in object-oriented code - Not OK in any version of the GPL that I am aware of, though a waiver clause similar to glibc may be possible.

No, it wasn't even a question of security, because the first question they asked him is if it (the page in question) was hosted on a Microsoft-owned server (wtf - they couldn't even do a traceroute? oops, forgot - this is Microsoft, not the most tech-savvy company out there by a long shot).

If it had been, they would have sacked him for misuse of company property. Since they couldn't they went to their fall-back position, which is that it was a breech of security to let the general public know where the building was located - never mind that the location is already public knowledge - city hall has it, the public utilities have it, the phone company has a detailed layout of the whole site, delivery companies have it, former employees have it (unless they're being mind-wiped on termination), yada yada yada. It's not a secret, so their excuse was typical microsoft bullshit.

As far as preventing leaks, this is a company with a history of leaking like a sieve halloween is here - we want more halloween documents, just like their products.

Remember - this is not a flame if it's true.

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
...
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. (emphass added)

So, unless you plan to do maintainance on obfuscated code, this is no good for GPL software. In fact, it's no good for Open Source software of any kind.

Admitadly, you could use unobfuscated code and refuse to reveal the watermark, but it's kind of tricky to keep things secret in the OSS world.

They call it open source, but it fits your definition of free. (emphasis added)

Of course it "fits [my] definition of free [software]" (link added) since The Open Source Definition by Eric Raymond is nothing else but just a rewrite of Free Software Guidelines from Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract written by Bruce Perens himself in the first place. That is not an issue though.

What I find somehow disturbing is the very fact that while I can fully understand that back then mentioning freedom and liberty ideals was inconvenient for Eric Raymond in his business negotiations and that he wanted to focus on technical merits while temporarily ignoring the ethical implications until large corporations start actually using the "new" (i.e. new for the corporations mentioned above) open source software and then going back to calling it "free software" again as soon as it gets the required momentum. Fair enough.

But I find it absolutely unacceptable to ignore political, ethical and social issues -- to ignore the freedom itself -- in the context of political decisions of the European Union. Please keep in mind that saying "open source" instead of "free software" had only one purpose -- to temporarily ignore the very fact that GNU is all about freedom in the first place, the techincal superiority being only a nice side effect.

Once again, in the business context I can understand Raymond but bastardising his idea to talk about GNU in the explicitly political environment is clearly against both movements, traditional Free Software as well as the new Open Source, since after all Open Source is Free Software minus the politics -- that's the whole point.

Give me Eric Raymond and Open Source Initiative for talking about business any day, but if we are talking about politics then give me Richard Stallman and Free Software Foundation because this is the political movement.

Of course we all know it is much more complicated than that, since we understand that not mentioning GNU in the name of the OS and calling it simply Linux is done exactly because that way the whole system can be called "open source" without the need to ever publically talk about GNU and free software ideals at all, but we have to remember that the politicians might not always realize that.

very practical and a great way to pollute your system with proprietary crap. In other words it's great for open source advocates and evil for free software advocates (myself included).

If the 1% of proprietary crap on your system makes it usable, with the option being a 100% proprietary environment, I'm all for the little bit of proprietary crap. If proprietary stuff brings more users, more and better Free Software will be developed.

In other words you are in the open source camp (see OSI) -- pragmatical and practical imperatives, in the oposition to purely ideological and political ones of free software movement (see FSF). This is exactly what I was talking about.

As for making the system "usable" I have really no idea how having pure free software system (in The Church of Emacs sense) renders it somhow "unusable." I don't need Windows drivers, since I don't buy crappy hardware without support in my kernel. I don't need win32 codecs for MPlayer, since I don't pirate movies. I don't need patent-violating MP3 players since I don't pirate music, which means I can have all of my CDs ripped to superior in every way Xiph Ogg Vorbis format.

I also don't care about more users -- only about more developers and with my Debian those are completely orthogonal (I don't use commercial GNU distroes, with which I admit that the user base is indeed important).

That depends what you mean by open-source. Democracy doesn't depend on voting software being open-source in the sense of the official definition (which is virtually the same as the FSF's concept of copyleft), but the source code itself should be published.

Voters don't need the right to make unlimited copies and derivative works (free as in beer/speech) of voting software. We do need to be sure that our votes are counted correctly, which means being able to look over the source code of the software, compile it, and reverse-engineer any hardware components.

The headline is highly misleading. Maya is not free software by any stretch of imagination, it's not even open source software. There are strings attached, be careful.

• Different hardware?
• Different OS?
• Different programming language?
• Different programming model?
• Different requirements? Oops!

McBride probably believes this point though, and he has to, otherwise his case falls apart and he opens the company -- and himself personally -- to all sorts of abuse and contempt charges.

He spouts the same McDonald's crap as seen in Halloween IX, but strangely enough, no "protestor" mentioned that the only McD use of SCO is in the cash registers, which have less power than my non-hacked, Palm023.1 Palm III handheld, which I use more than my iPAQ. This is OpenServer, which was once Microsoft Xenix. McDonald's is not using SCO in their datacenters, just in their cash registers.

McBride throws out the "high-scalability" buzzwords and is never correctly challenged by these "protestors", most of whom by their questions and responses appear to be anti-globalisationalists waiting for the next G-8 summit. Great questions from them included:

"Have you ever read the GNU Public License?"
[Answer: (13:30) "Sure", followed by change of subject due to cop.]

"...Do you hope that the Linux kernel is completely free of any violations whatsoever?"
[Answer: (16:22) "Sure", followed by change of subject due to another "protestor's" question.

And so on...

McBride probably believes this point though, and he has to, otherwise his case falls apart and he opens the company -- and himself personally -- to all sorts of abuse and contempt charges.

He spouts the same McDonald's crap as seen in Halloween IX, but strangely enough, no "protestor" mentioned that the only McD use of SCO is in the cash registers, which have less power than my non-hacked, Palm023.1 Palm III handheld, which I use more than my iPAQ. This is OpenServer, which was once Microsoft Xenix. McDonald's is not using SCO in their datacenters, just in their cash registers.

McBride throws out the "high-scalability" buzzwords and is never correctly challenged by these "protestors", most of whom by their questions and responses appear to be anti-globalisationalists waiting for the next G-8 summit. Great questions from them included:

"Have you ever read the GNU Public License?"
[Answer: (13:30) "Sure", followed by change of subject due to cop.]

"...Do you hope that the Linux kernel is completely free of any violations whatsoever?"
[Answer: (16:22) "Sure", followed by change of subject due to another "protestor's" question.

And so on...

Follow this train of thought for S(2), the 2D sphere in 3D space, or the Earth

Nope, it's S(3) moving through 2D 'space'.

Now make the analagous visualization for S(3), the 3D sphere in 4D space.

In a similar manner, it's S(4) moving through 3D 'space'.


The best way to popularize Open Source Software is to support the BSA.

- The record company is not a member of the RIAA, and that it is not affiliated with any company that is

- The CD record itself does not employ any DRM technology that aims to restrict the rights of the purchaser

The word mark could be accompanied by some eye-catching logo and put on the CDs, to make it easy for customers who are fed up with the RIAA members' attitude towards them, but would still like to spend some money on music, simply because they enjoy listening to it.

What is a "certification trademark"? It's basically like a normal trademark, except that anybody who fulfills the criteria that are specified for that particular mark can use it. One example of a certification mark is the OSI mark for Open Source software.

I'll bite... As "Not" stated here...

Some choice quotes which apply to the current Massachusetts law:

The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them...

It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position... as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).

...the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance.

...the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.

Not GPL'ed, but pretty nifty all the same.

Agreed. The availability of the source code to Homeworld is really cool, since it's one of the most awesome games ever released. :)

But can anybody here tell us under what kind of license the source code has been released? What are the major differences with the GPL and is it close to any of the generally accepted "Open Source" licenses?

It seems likely to me that it would be a highly restrictive "non-commercial use only" license, similar to the one under which Volition released the source to Freespace a while back.

At any rate, beggers can't be choosers. With this code, we'll be able to port it to various non-Win32 platforms, regardless. Especially since the game's engine supports not only Direct3D, but OpenGL as well. Good job, Valve! :)

Eh, no that's the Open Source Initiative. Compare this with this

Basically, OSI just wants the source to be available for practical reasons (safety, compatibility, etc.), while FSF wants all software to be free (as in speech and beer). You may ask money for your software, but you cannot stop someone else from giving your software away for free (beer), so effectively you're stuck with a charge-for-support-and-the-box business model.

Eh, no that's the Open Source Initiative. Compare this with this

Basically, OSI just wants the source to be available for practical reasons (safety, compatibility, etc.), while FSF wants all software to be free (as in speech and beer). You may ask money for your software, but you cannot stop someone else from giving your software away for free (beer), so effectively you're stuck with a charge-for-support-and-the-box business model.

From the article's first question:

"You gave Linux, the operating system, to the world free, in effect jump-starting the open-source movement."

First, Linux is not an operating system and it never was. What Linus Torvalds began was a kernel -- a necessary and valuable portion of a complete GNU/Linux operating system, but not the entirety of it. Linux is now being collectively developed by many people around the world, including Torvalds. In 1984, Richard Stallman began working on GNU years before Torvalds began working on what would become Linux. Many people would join Stallman and develop that operating system. Second, According to the Open Source Initiative, the Open Source movement was a reaction to Netscape releasing the source code for its web browser. It was this act that "jump-start[ed]" the Open Source movement. The people who started that movement did so in 1998, seven years after Torvalds released Linux.

You seem to think that "open source" is just shorthand for "free source code." Giving people access to a product's source code (all its source code) is only part what you have to do to make the product open source. You might want to read the OSI's official definition.

IBM is competing unfairly with SCO by taking their knowledge of Unix and using it to develop linux.

Says SCO. Look here for a good refutation of SCO's claims against IBM.

SCO proabably has a good chance of winning, on Bois wouldn't have signed on to the case.

That must be why Boies skipped SCOForum and has silently slipped into the background, leaving Mark Heise as SCO's new chief counsel.