Slashdot Mirror

Would you please make un-annotated versions available?
No. As it is, my defense against a copyright-violation suit by Microsoft would have to make rather creative use of the exemptions in copyright case law relating to journalism, satire and commentary. I fear that making un-annotated copies available would place me at significant legal risk.

And, lest we forget, the biggest dog on the block has already thought about commoditizing the protocols that currently make the Internet work.

The funny/frustrating thing about technology (to me at least) is how a foot in the door of one technology can cause patent-creep into other technologies. If the patent process were codified into a computer language, we'd have an enormous body of cruft.

--K.

This reminds me of another heavily fragmented software community.

Who is Linux's worst enemy?

(although I recognize that the OSI definition typically includes most of the same freedoms that are found with Free Software)

Read the OSI's Open Source Definition or, better yet, the original Open Source Definition Version 1.0, published in 1998, when the Open Source Initiative was founded.

Then, after you read the Open Source Definition 1.0, read The Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Now, keep in mind, that The Debian Project was officially founded in 1993. The creation of Debian was sponsored by the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, before the Software in the Public Interest organization was formed. Debian is the only GNU/Linux distribution, which correctly use the operating system name "GNU/Linux," while all other GNU/Linux distributions refuse to give any due credit to The GNU Project, for some reason.

Now you should have some idea why "the OSI definition typically includes most of the same freedoms that are found with Free Software."

And you should probably also have idea why so many people get so angry when most of the world is talking about Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds as the only heroes in the community -- Eric Raymond, who started the Open Source Movement and OSI in 1998 (never minding Richard Stallman who started the Free Software Movement and FSF in 1985), and Linus Torvalds, who wrote the whole operating system in 1991 (never minding, again, Richard Stallman, who started The GNU Project in 1983). See this recent farce, as an example on what I am talking about.

The facts are, that Linus Torvalds took an 8 years old operating system project, which only lacked the finished kernel, wrote a kernel and published the whole operating system (GNU system plus his own kernel) as "Linux." In my opinion, this operating system should be called simply "GNU," however Richard Stallman and the FSF wish to give both projects equal credit (for not equal work, mind you) calling the whole operating system "GNU/Linux." Still, most of the people call it just "Linux," refusing to mention GNU at all, for reasons which are beyond me. The same strange attitude we can observe with "Open Source Software" and The Open Source Initiative vs. "Free Software" and The Free Software Foundation.

Why is that so important? For a good example, see the "Linux" definition from this recent Sony Press Release from December 18, 2002:

"Linux: a Unix compatible open source operating system created in 1991 by Linus Torvalds, then a graduate student at the University of Helsinki."

Now I think it should be obvious for everyone. Keep in mind that I am talking about Sony here. This is the misinformation, which most of the people outside the community will take as truth. And when anyone will start to wonder why this software was started in the first place, she will go to Linus Torvalds and OSI's explainations, because she will not even know about the GNU and The Free Software Philosophy.

I think that the "Open Source Linux OS" vs. "Free Software GNU/Linux OS" schism is very harmful to the community at large, because the people outside of the hacker subculture have not only no idea who in fact has done which work, but they also have no idea why, which is much more important.

The real reason is freedom, but when people think that they use a "Linux OS," which was written by Linus Torvalds as an "open source software," which was invented by Eric Raymond, then they will never know that it is all about freedom at all. So, they are happy with proprietary device drivers, the very same thing which made Richard Stallman start The GNU Project in the first place.

This post will probably get moderated down, as most of Slashdot users unfortunately represent the let's-never-mention-GNU attitude of the young Internet community today. Of course, at the same time, some other post will get moderated up as +5 Funny, because it says GNU/this GNU/that -- yes, very funny indeed, especially after repeating this idiotic joke million times a week, not even stopping to think why it is important to talk about freedom, as the main motivation behind The GNU Project and the Free Software Movement at large...

Sad. Very sad.

(although I recognize that the OSI definition typically includes most of the same freedoms that are found with Free Software)

Read the OSI's Open Source Definition or, better yet, the original Open Source Definition Version 1.0, published in 1998, when the Open Source Initiative was founded.

Then, after you read the Open Source Definition 1.0, read The Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Now, keep in mind, that The Debian Project was officially founded in 1993. The creation of Debian was sponsored by the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, before the Software in the Public Interest organization was formed. Debian is the only GNU/Linux distribution, which correctly use the operating system name "GNU/Linux," while all other GNU/Linux distributions refuse to give any due credit to The GNU Project, for some reason.

Now you should have some idea why "the OSI definition typically includes most of the same freedoms that are found with Free Software."

And you should probably also have idea why so many people get so angry when most of the world is talking about Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds as the only heroes in the community -- Eric Raymond, who started the Open Source Movement and OSI in 1998 (never minding Richard Stallman who started the Free Software Movement and FSF in 1985), and Linus Torvalds, who wrote the whole operating system in 1991 (never minding, again, Richard Stallman, who started The GNU Project in 1983). See this recent farce, as an example on what I am talking about.

The facts are, that Linus Torvalds took an 8 years old operating system project, which only lacked the finished kernel, wrote a kernel and published the whole operating system (GNU system plus his own kernel) as "Linux." In my opinion, this operating system should be called simply "GNU," however Richard Stallman and the FSF wish to give both projects equal credit (for not equal work, mind you) calling the whole operating system "GNU/Linux." Still, most of the people call it just "Linux," refusing to mention GNU at all, for reasons which are beyond me. The same strange attitude we can observe with "Open Source Software" and The Open Source Initiative vs. "Free Software" and The Free Software Foundation.

Why is that so important? For a good example, see the "Linux" definition from this recent Sony Press Release from December 18, 2002:

"Linux: a Unix compatible open source operating system created in 1991 by Linus Torvalds, then a graduate student at the University of Helsinki."

Now I think it should be obvious for everyone. Keep in mind that I am talking about Sony here. This is the misinformation, which most of the people outside the community will take as truth. And when anyone will start to wonder why this software was started in the first place, she will go to Linus Torvalds and OSI's explainations, because she will not even know about the GNU and The Free Software Philosophy.

I think that the "Open Source Linux OS" vs. "Free Software GNU/Linux OS" schism is very harmful to the community at large, because the people outside of the hacker subculture have not only no idea who in fact has done which work, but they also have no idea why, which is much more important.

The real reason is freedom, but when people think that they use a "Linux OS," which was written by Linus Torvalds as an "open source software," which was invented by Eric Raymond, then they will never know that it is all about freedom at all. So, they are happy with proprietary device drivers, the very same thing which made Richard Stallman start The GNU Project in the first place.

This post will probably get moderated down, as most of Slashdot users unfortunately represent the let's-never-mention-GNU attitude of the young Internet community today. Of course, at the same time, some other post will get moderated up as +5 Funny, because it says GNU/this GNU/that -- yes, very funny indeed, especially after repeating this idiotic joke million times a week, not even stopping to think why it is important to talk about freedom, as the main motivation behind The GNU Project and the Free Software Movement at large...

Sad. Very sad.

Nice, long, readable, understandable, in-depth reply. Thanks. =D

A few points.

First, I agree with the entire first paragraph, word for word, except for this one thing:

"Their whole world revolves around an ill-conceived "hatred" (their words) of a software company. And if that isn't stupid, I don't know what is."

My entire world is computers. Call me stupid, I'll debate you; call me pathetic, I'll whole-heartedly agree. On to my point... Microsoft's marketing has propelled the tech industry to what it is today. Seriously. If not MS, someone else would have, but MS gets kudos for that. However, Microsoft has also held the market back in many ways. In many ways, we're still in 1990. Since my entire life is computers, I have a beef with MS. For the longest time, I would constantly gawk at the difference in attitude between OSS and companies such as Microsoft, not to mention the quality of the software. Etc. etc., blah blah blah. Microsoft is a big deal to me. I've spent enough time talking about it that I'm past that stage now, just as I'm mostly past ranting about Linux. It's a maturity thing, but I think it's roots are very understandable and acceptable; everyone has a passion.

Moving on...

---
"People like RMS or ESR on the other hand, are extremists who would be happy if all the programmers in the world were starving so as to fullfill their feverish visions of Nirvana. I've always found it amusing how RMS can preach from his well-funded pulpit about the virtues of giving away software."

RMS is a nutcase. But he's a smart nutcase. I'm a programmer myself. I'm not familiar with all of RMS's stances, and sometimes I think he makes a mountain out of a mole-hill, but the guy isn't all crazy. And just as an aside, I think you might be interested in opensource.org; they have some very good, realistic arguments for giving away software.

The trouble is, OSS hasn't been tested hardly at all at the big level. On a small level, it's doubtful that it will support a programmer. On the large scale level (of software resellers), it has yet to be tested much. Regarding in-house programming (custom, internal software), which makes up most development in the world (ref: OSI homepage quote of study), OSS is a better solution than CS simply because you can get outside help for free. Problems are common between people and business -- others will help.

---
"Or how ESR can churn out his Halloween documents year after year running whatever OS it is that he runs on a computer that costs $1,000 instead of $10,000 because his hated Microsoft OSes have commoditized hardware to that point in the past 10 years."

As technology advances, and spreads, it's inevitable that prices go down. Microsoft facilitated this, but I think you'd agree that it would likely have happened without them.

---
"If anything, the OSS world is as full of hypocrisy, double dealing and backstabbing as the corporate world"

Whoa! From everything I've seen, OSS folks are the most helpful, most intelligent, most noble folks I know in the computer world. I work with people from both worlds, and I spend lots of time looking up resources (forums, mailing lists, IRC, HOWTOs, etc.) on the net that are produced by OSS folks. I really can't say that I agree with you to any degree at all. The spirit of OSS is opposite of that of corporations in every way. Sure, there's zealotry, but are you possibly putting bias into the mix when you read RMS?

That last point, BTW, is something that without examples and a sound argument, I would consider a troll. Without backup, it would fit into my "anti-OSS arguments based on ignorance." Please prove me wrong, or please look at this from an unbiased point of view and restate what you said. You're a smart guy, there's no harm in changing an opinion (including mine).

---
"And that's OK, because this is not the Microsoft FanClub. But I think we'd all benefit from looking at the negative things as wel as highlighting the positives."

That's not OK. The best way to get rid of sand in between two people causing friction is to rub harder. That's the principle of OSS -- break it and it gets fixed to be stronger. That's how philosophy should work. That's how religion should work. That's how science should work. That's how everything should work. Yes, I believe in the OSS way of things because it's the most open, honest, and productive way of getting somewhere.

---
"In any case, what's a troll to you may be insightful to me (and my signature strikes a balance between the two. Look at the moderation done to some of my posts - people can't decide whether I'm a troll or not. I think that's extremely interesting)."

Very true. But remember that you need good facts and a solid argument to back up something that won't be considered a troll. That's why I consider Twirlip of the Mists a troll; he can't. He throws FUD, and when I offer examples to the contrary, he can't shoot them down.

---
" Microsoft is not the most likeable company in the world, and they are a monopoly. They've bought a lot of the technology they sell instead of innovating."

Agreed.

---
"But they're in the business of making money, and they make damn good products, regardless of the ignorant "mwahhh, it crashes every ten seconds" posts and lame jokes galore."

Windows 2000 is worthy of being called an operating system. I use it for games.

That said, I'm really going to have to disagree on this one. Of course this is an opinion (quality), but I do hope you have or can take a look at some of the other solutions out there. I think you'll find that there are many features in, say, a GNOME desktop using Sawfish and with Ximian add-ons that will dazzle you.

And please realize that while a lot of folks throw a lot of flames about bugs and security holes, these are those 'redundant but true' comments I was talking about. Let me explain.

When Microsoft releases Win98 First Edition as production class software, I'm skeptical that they make good software. When they release Windows ME as production software, I'm skeptical as well. These were both beta quality.

When Microsoft releases features such as the "Windows Help Desk" that is so easy to exploit (ref: here), I'm skeptical that they've put any thought at all into security.

When people complain about Outlook holes that have been patched for years, I sigh. It's pretty ridiculous, but then again, the holes were there in the first place, so even though it's redundant, bringing up Microsoft's history, while annoying, is still valid. People don't change overnight, and companies less so.

Microsoft has a habit of releasing beta software and putting security last. They also have a habit of treating bugs like PR problems. I hope what I'm saying is interesting enough that you'll look into it, or expound on this whole issue more, if you are informed. I consider myself a fan of Microsoft news; I track what goes on with them, I keep up to date on their products, etc. I hope that my opinion is qualified, and if not, I hope you can counter my above points.

---
"I've always stated that Microsoft is Microsoft because no other company had the guts and vision to do what they did."

Agreed, although I feel compelled to point out that Microsoft had enough vision to buy other people's visions. They do not innovate, and if you're familiar with their history, this is indeed a true statement. But, yes, they had the guts, I agree with that 110%.

---
"Oracle and Sun can take Gates to court all they want, but does anyone think that given the right circumstances, Slashdot would have Larry Ellison or Scott McNealy in a Borg suit now?"

Oracle I'm not familiar with. Sun is all uptight in and around themselves, so yeah, probably. =P

---
"Except that Gates laughed all the way to the bank. And I respect that."

I'm not sure what to make of this. Gates had the business genius, and he's not as evil as people make him out to be, but he sure doesn't have a problem with taking a ton of money, nor selling beta software as final, nor locking in users. For this lack of morales, I dislike Gates.

But I hate Ballmer.

---
"Just as I respect someone like Linus Torvalds. In many ways, they're more alike than they'd probably care to admit."

They're both geeks who enjoy playing with features. They both like being at the head of things and starting new projects. However, I believe that Linus has the moral highground. Not that Gates is evil, just that he's more evil (read: greedy) than neutral.

---
"Sparring here with the living dead is fun, and I do it whenever I have time."

Agreed.

---
"But in the end, like I've always said, it's just software."

Software affects us all more than most think, and much less than some think. However, software affects some of us a lot. I'm one of those people, so this whole thing is a big deal to me. Please understand that and respect it. =)

---
"There are better things to fight over."

Agreed.

I hope my reply was intelligent, informed and well thought out. I hope that I took most of the biased slant out of my wording; I'm working on that skill, and Slashdot helps that a ton. Please strive for all the same in your reply so we don't waste time bickering*. =P

(*: Note, I'm just really paranoid about some intelligent folks on Slashdot who go all out when someone disagrees with them [hope this isn't hypocritical as of late]. Call it a knee-jerk reaction.)

Ratings for messages that were meant to be negative actually had a positive response among the respondents. For example, when read what was supposed to be a negative OSS message about OSS and proprietary software having a similar TCO, nearly half (49%) of all respondents said that having heard this message they were now MORE FAVORABLE towards OSS.

Let me respond to your posting and try to work out a list of sites. As you say, gnusoftware.org is down and has been for quite some time. The links on opensource.org aren't a great deal of use but I did find O'Reilly OSDir's Windows section with 18 apps listed, and BerliOS's Windows category with 11 projects. OSSBlacksheep is just a CD you can buy with some free software for Windows - similar to some mentioned on Slashdot recently.

More useful than these is the old favourite Cygwin, a Unix-on-Win32 layer with gcc and tools, and its offshoot Mingw (aka Ming, Mingw32, Minimalist GNU-Win32) which is a native gcc and toolchain, without a Unix emulation layer. You can use Cygwin to port lots of Unix apps, and you can use Mingw to build the Win32 ports of things like perl and Mozilla. Actually I don't think you need both since Cygwin's gcc can build native executables too, but Mingw is slightly 'cleaner' if you have no need for emulated symlinks and other cruft.

Hmm, what else can I think of? Well a lot of the big applications like Emacs and Mozilla have native Win32 ports. Don't forget the old DOS stuff, DJGPP which is a GNU-based development environment for DOS - everything except fork()!. There used to be a rival called EMX but it seems to have faded away.

You're right that allowing Windows free software on Freshmeat but not Windows proprietary software is something of a double standard; but then so is allowing PalmOS (a wholly proprietary platform and not Unix). I don't think anyone expects Freshmeat to hold to a particular set of principles, it's above all a practical and useful site. So allowing Windows software but only when it is free might be a pragmatic compromise.

Maybe one day, one of the Freshmeat staff will be forced to use a Windows box for a few months, and then I'd expect a Windows section to appear pretty rapidly :-).

For more information on the Kool-Aid Man's position on free software, open source, the DMCA, and pre-marital sex, look here.

He doesn't actually say open source software, only free He doesn't actually say open source software, only free.

Amen. I absolutely agree. "open source" != "free software" I wish more people have read GNU Philosophy to know that. Please let me suggest you all (and by "you all" I mean all the people who do not yet understand the difference between open source and free software, not Eht of course) reading these particularly important texts:

1. The Free Software Definition
2. Debian Free Software Guidelines
3. Open Source Definition

When, in 1998, Eric Raymond took Debian Free Software Guidelines and renamed them as the Open Source Definition, he didn't want his new movement being misinterpreted as the Free Software Movement, and especially the strong philosophy associated with the term "free software" since at least 1983. Otherwise he would have used the old "free software" term, not the new "open source." Please let us have some respect to his work.

I usually don't say it, but: PLEASE MOD PARENT UP! (I would have done it myself, but I don't have any mod points right now. Thanks.)

I'm really glad that eht touched that sensitive subject. Someone had to say that. Because there is a huge difference between Open Source and Free Software, which so many people are overlooking. Please check out Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative for more info. Thanks.

From the What is TheOpenCD website:

"It also includes a selection of essays about Open Source philosophy, and links to other programs that might be of interest."

I'm sorry, but what is exactly open source philosophy? Open source is about technical and economical advantages. Free software is about philosophy. Please do not flame me for saying the obvious. When Eric Raymond took Debian Free Software Guidelines and published them as Open Source Definition in 1998 he did it exactly because he wanted free software without the strong philosophy associated with the "free software" term since at least the announcement of the GNU Project in 1983.

I think that TheOpenCD project should not talk about philosophy if they want to promote the open source movement. But if they think that the philosophy is important, then they should promote the free software movement and change their name to TheFreeCD. Because the philosophy is exactly the difference between free software and open source movements. If they talk about "open source philosophy" they are being against the main priciples of both movements.

TheOpenCD project people should read these books:

• The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary by Eric S. Raymond (online version)
• Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software by Sam Williams (online version)
• Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman by Richard M. Stallman (GNU philosophy website, book CVS source)

Those books are not very long, but they provide enough background to let avoid using such unfortunate oxymorons like "open source philosophy." I strongly respect both free software and open source movements and I can not stay ignorant when people insult any of them, while the term "open source philosophy" insults both.

From the What is TheOpenCD website:

"It also includes a selection of essays about Open Source philosophy, and links to other programs that might be of interest."

I'm sorry, but what is exactly open source philosophy? Open source is about technical and economical advantages. Free software is about philosophy. Please do not flame me for saying the obvious. When Eric Raymond took Debian Free Software Guidelines and published them as Open Source Definition in 1998 he did it exactly because he wanted free software without the strong philosophy associated with the "free software" term since at least the announcement of the GNU Project in 1983.

I think that TheOpenCD project should not talk about philosophy if they want to promote the open source movement. But if they think that the philosophy is important, then they should promote the free software movement and change their name to TheFreeCD. Because the philosophy is exactly the difference between free software and open source movements. If they talk about "open source philosophy" they are being against the main priciples of both movements.

TheOpenCD project people should read these books:

• The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary by Eric S. Raymond (online version)
• Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software by Sam Williams (online version)
• Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman by Richard M. Stallman (GNU philosophy website, book CVS source)

Those books are not very long, but they provide enough background to let avoid using such unfortunate oxymorons like "open source philosophy." I strongly respect both free software and open source movements and I can not stay ignorant when people insult any of them, while the term "open source philosophy" insults both.

We WERE talking about Open Source, not Free software.

In practice, they're the same thing. The Open Source Definition is almost word-for-word identical with the Debian Free Software Guidelines because the former was based on the latter.

The benefits of Open Source or Free software to its users are undeniable. If the software has a bug, or the software does not do something you want it to do, you can change it. There are many advantages, and they have been explained at length by various people. If you are going to be using software, you are definitely better off if you have access to the source code.

Trust

The fundamental difference between open source software and closed source software is the level of trust required. For a business to use closed source software, the level of trust required is enormous. It is not simply a question of whether the money spent purchasing the software is a good investment. The time invested using the software is far more significant. Almost inevitably your own business information becomes tied up in a format that is specific to the software you are using. In order to buy software from a closed source company, you have to take the following on trust:

• They have not left gaping security holes in the code.
• They will fix bugs in a timely manner.
• They will eventually add the features you want.
• They are not using your computing resources to do things which are not in your interest.
• They will not increase the price unreasonably once you depend on them.
• They will not go bust.

Business Models Having access to the source code makes good sense to the users. However the business case for the software vendor is far less convincing. In fact, the dangers of closed source from the user's perspective can be considered opportunities from the vendor's perspective.

The open source foundation proposes "4 ways to win" which is reproduced here: Four Ways To Win

Now for a higher-level, investor's point of view. There are at least four known business models for making money with open source:

1. Support Sellers (otherwise known as "Give Away the Recipe, Open A Restaurant"): In this model, you (effectively) give away the software product, but sell distribution, branding, and after-sale service. This is what (for example) Red Hat does.
2. Loss Leader: In this model, you give away open-source as a loss-leader and market positioner for closed software. This is what Netscape is doing.
3. Widget Frosting : In this model, a hardware company (for which software is a necessary adjunct but strictly a cost rather than profit center) goes open-source in order to get better drivers and interface tools cheaper. Silicon Graphics, for example, supports and ships Samba.
4. Accessorizing: Selling accessories books, compatible hardware, complete systems with open-source software pre-installed. It's easy to trivialize this (open-source T-shirts, coffee mugs, Linux penguin dolls) but at least the books and hardware underly some clear successes: O'Reilly Associates, SSC, and VA Research are among them.

In fact, the number of companies that have had success with any of these models is miniscule. This is hardly surprising, they are simply not very good business models for software companies.

Taking each in turn... Selling Support The better documented and more reliable the product is, the less support it needs. A business model where the more perfect your product, the less money you can make has got something fundamentally wrong with it. Loss Leader The very fact that this can be advanced as a viable business model for OpenSource shows desperation. What it comes down to is an admission that the best way to make money from software is by selling it. Widget Frosting This makes perfect sense if you are a hardware company, or when the software is a side issue. However, its no use at all for a business whose main product is software. Accessorizing Selling accessories is fine, but there is no pressing need to actually develop the software when one is in the accessories business.

There are of course other business models for Open Source. For instance, the one adopted by the Perl foundation and several others is begging. This is not a business model that many companies would find appealing though.

The basic problem is that for a business whose primary function is to make software, then the primary reward has to come from selling the software. We need a business model that actually works and we have one, it's called capitalism. It works like this: make something that people want and sell it to them. This model works for software too, and there is no reason why this model cannot work even when source code is available. Closed source vendors are relying on something a little closer to the business model of a heroin pusher. It starts off like capitalism, but there is the added feature that the user gets addicted and has to carry on buying the same thing even if he does not really want to. The more he uses the same vendor, the more reliant he is upon it.

The Solution Community software is software where the vendor can be paid a fair price for the software he creates, but where the buyer does not end up in a similar position to a junkie.

Community Source is software that guarantees the following:

1. The right to see what the software is doing, ie access to unobfuscated source code.
2. The right to add enhancements.
3. The right to fix bugs.
4. The right to sell his enhancements to other companies. This does not mean the right to the sell software without the original vendor receiving any money. The buyer still needs a license from the original vendor, but he does not have to rely on a single vendor for upgrades and enhancements.
5. The right to buy enhanced versions from 3rd parties.

Will the last SPI board member standing please remember to transfer opensource.org to OSI?
-russ

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.

...

7 Distribution of License

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

No it's not. The source is not available to all who ask for free. The source does not allow others to copy and distribute the source for free or for profit. Open Source software is actually more free about copyright restrictions (like the BSD license) than Free Software which restricts copyright to ensure that all have access to the source of derivative works.

This is a restricted source licensing scheme, not an Open Source Software. You really need to read the Open Source Definition to get a better idea of what Open Source is. I mean, the first principle of OSS is allowing free redistribution. Free Software forces free redistribution. This guy's scheme doesn't allow free redistribution at all. Been there. Done that -- not OSS.

The department title for this story says "open source does not necessarily mean free". Obviously the poster did not mean "free", as his intentions are proprietary as hell, but let's try at least to stick to the Open Source definition and not call it open source either.

What you are trying to do, mister, is to give away the source but with crippled access to it. While you're at it, why don't you license it using Microsoft's Shared Source license?

The Simputer is actually designed by a trust, the Simputer Trust, which leased out the design to companies who might be interested in manufacturing it. Their motivation in having liberal license policies is to promote hardware development, allowing Simputer users to benefit.

Technically, this is neither Open Source according to the Open Source Initiative's definition, , which says: "The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.", and companies producing designs have to pay a licensing fee of $25,000 if they're from developing nations or $250,000 if they're from richer nations.

It also isn't Free, according to the Free Software Foundation's
definition, for the same reason.

However, given the differences between hardware and software development (and manufacture), it's very reasonable and not surprising that a free hardware license won't count as free/open source software, and is definitely in the same spirit as the open source movement, and inspired by the free software movement as well.

Related Links:

SGPL vs GPL
Simputer Licensing terms

The Simputer is actually designed by a trust, the Simputer Trust, which leased out the design to companies who might be interested in manufacturing it. Their motivation in having liberal license policies is to promote hardware development, allowing Simputer users to benefit.

Technically, this is neither Open Source according to the Open Source Initiative's definition, , which says: "The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.", and companies producing designs have to pay a licensing fee of $25,000 if they're from developing nations or $250,000 if they're from richer nations.

It also isn't Free, according to the Free Software Foundation's
definition, for the same reason.

However, given the differences between hardware and software development (and manufacture), it's very reasonable and not surprising that a free hardware license won't count as free/open source software, and is definitely in the same spirit as the open source movement, and inspired by the free software movement as well.

Related Links:

SGPL vs GPL
Simputer Licensing terms

Sincere Choice
Open Source Initiative
Why Free Software's Long Run TCO must be lower
Open Source is good for America - US military advised (This is about the military, but parts can also apply to business. Read the report linked at the end of that article.)

Open source requires the user be given certain rights, not just access to the source.

Keep your Stallmanesque ranting about "free software" versus "open source" out of the rest of the Linux community, it is divisive.

Introduction
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
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.

2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost-preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

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

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.

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

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

9. The License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

10. No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

So my question to the Slashdot community is when is Linux going to be prevalent enough on the desktop that people will pay for applications and not always assume they are free?

You seem to miss the whole point of free software.

I am one of people who will pay for applications and always assume they should be free, by which I mean that they should give me enough freedom -- see The Free Software Definition, What do you mean by Free Software?, or The Debian Free Software Guidelines (or The Open Source Definition, which is basically Debian Free Software Guidelines rewritten).

My question would be: when is Linux going to be prevalent enough on the desktop that people will always assume that software should be free?

Think about it -- the answer will surely be somewhere between your question and mine. If you want to sell proprietary software working under free software operating systems, which exist only because some people have rebelled against proprietary software world, then you will have to find out which of our two questions the answer is closer to.

Better yet, where are the people who feel that way now?"

They are probably running Windows or Mac.

I don't really think people who use totally free software operating systems -- be it GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc. -- on their desktops, which, mind you, still often means many disadvantages in cooperation with proprietary software world (e.g. Microsoft Office obfuscated documents format), would like to use your proprietary software (which has nothing to do with paying for it), because such a software is exactly what they are trying to be free from.

I am using only free software today (and I have paid lots of money for some of it) on my servers, as well as on my desktops, and this is how does it look like for me: running Debian GNU/Linux with Apache and mod_perl plus PostgreSQL or MySQL is easy -- as long as it produces HTML, we are compatible with the rest of the world (even Microsoft browsers under Microsoft OS will have no problems at all) -- but using GNU on the desktop can be much more problematic. There are websites which use ActiveX, there are people who send MS Excel or MS Word documents in email (even if it's HTML written by MS Word, when I look at the source code, I don't know if I should laugh or cry), there are people who send different presentations and other data in the form of Microsoft Windows executables, et cetera, et cetera, every day there is some problem.

So, why do I use free software on my desktop, you may ask me? Because I strongly believe in my freedom, which I value much higher than my convenience.

This is why I will never use your proprietary software, and this is maybe why some of other people will never use it as well. Of course, I can speak only for myself, but I believe other people, who use exclusively free software desktops, do so because of different reasons than their convenience, as well.

And this is why I would suggest you targeting proprietary software to people who use proprietary software, which, after all, sounds quite obvious, but this might be exactly your problem here. If you want to target software to me, or to people like me, take a look at GNU Philosophy and Debian Social Contract to have some idea how do I choose my software. I wish you good luck.

The link in the summary seems to point to the wrong memo. Here's the correct one.

The FSF is also modifying the GNU General Public License (GPL), though the fundamental principles will remain unchanged, according to Stallman.
"We have looked at, for example, adding a clause that explicitly states that you give a patent license when you redistribute the software," Stallman added.


This will hopefully remove some incompatibilityies between the GPL and other free licenses such as the IBM Public License 1.0 used for Eclipse.

Microsoft should avoid criticizing OSS and Linux directly, continue to develop and aim to eventually win the TCO argument

The original article states:

"The document reproduced below was presented at a Microsoft internal Linux Strategic Review held at the Microsoft offices in Berlin during Sept. 2002. I received it on 5 November 2002."
However, the survey itself is more than a year old!

"The study fielded between late-July and September 2001."

True document or not, it is seriously out of date.
If it were conducted this year, I would expect it to cause more of a stir in the mainstream press.

I haven't read all the other posts so I apologize if this is redundant.. but...

the commercial products were more expensive for the first four to six years of lifetime costs

While this may justify some commercial products TCO. It shows that for the average lifespan of a vendor supported microsoft product the TCO will probably be higher because we all know microsoft is prone to retire a product (and support) well before it reaches 10 years of age. Heck, windows 2000 is already slated for retirement and it's hardly 3 years old.

Looks like if bill's goons want to beat us on a TCO ISSUE they will have to make a product that isn't so buggy it has to be retired every 5 years.

ESR explained in the Halloween documents FAQ:

As it is, my defense against a copyright-violation suit by Microsoft would have to make rather creative use of the exemptions in copyright case law relating to journalism, satire and commentary. I fear that making un-annotated copies available would place me at significant legal risk.

So the belief is the running commentary helps classify it as fair use, although hopefully that won't have to be tested anytime soon.

Here is a Web Archive link to the MS document that *somewhat* validates the first set of Halloween documents, obtained from the Haloween FAQ.

Would you please make un-annotated versions available?

No. As it is, my defense against a copyright-violation suit by Microsoft would have to make rather creative use of the exemptions in copyright case law relating to journalism, satire and commentary. I fear that making un-annotated copies available would place me at significant legal risk.

There's really no proof that the first set of Halloween Documents were truely an internal MS document either.

It's unlikely that we will ever see proof. The documents always come from 'a confidential source'.

If the confidential source is exposed, some poor MS employees will be fired, sued, and probably dumped into Puget Sound with a lead weight around their ankles.

Tom.

From the Open Source Definition:

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.

And this from the Free Software Definition:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

So, the community can not (does not) restrict terrorists from using any GPL'd (or compatibly licensed) software. And by the way, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. As it stands the community does not want to engage in moral discussions about who uses its software and for what purpose.

I have no idea what the government can do about it, but how could it prohibit the use of something that is widely available? That's the reason why it would be completely useless to restrict the distribution of strong crypto to NATO countries only for example. In order for a crypto algorithm to be deemed secure by the security community, it has to be published and proven secure through years of peer review. Even if access to programs incorporating this crypto stuff could be restricted, anyone with access to academic publications (and decent programming skills) could write software based on the published algorithms.

Wrong.

Open Source is defined by the Open Source Definition, which is a very slight modification to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, so they were always intended to be equivalent terms.

Unfortunately the Open Source Initiative, in their wisdom accepted that Apple License that both Debian and the Free Software Foundation rejected, but that is a tiny thing.

Getting the source is nowhere near sufficient to qualify for "Open Source" status.

You are also wrong about Free Software only being applicable to copyleft software. The list of licenses that the FSF accepts is extensive, and certainly not limited to copyleft licenses.

OK, so if you're being pedantic, you can say that I got it wrong, because the Apple difference does mean that Open Source is a superset of Free Software, but that was an intentional move on my part, because it was bound to catch the attention of people like you who have totally failed to understand that the two terms refer to the same thing (pretty much).

So which part of the Open Source Definition allows software that is barred by the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or vice versa?

(Hint: they're practiaclly word for word the same document, with a little editing done by the OSI since they based their definition on Debian's)

You fucking moron! I wish people like you had pricetag hanging out of your ass and it was fully legal to squeeze the trigger and claim the amount at the nearest OSI office.

May the likes of you stay away from the evolution of the human race.

"The GPL violates the Open Source Definition because it discriminates against a field of endeavor -- the creation of commercial software -- and against a class of individuals -- the people who write that software."

Ya know, sometimes slashdot really pisses me off. I submitted the following and it got rejected:

-----BEGIN-------
2002-10-25 07:19:11 TacLUG delegation to visit Congressman Adam Smith (articles,news) (rejected)

My name is Chuck Wolber and I am the president of the Tacoma Linux Users Group. I also happen to live in Adam Smith's voting district. We have secured an appointment to see him in person on Monday October 28, 2002 at 11:30am regarding his letter
on the GPL as it applies to commercial use of government funded "innovation". We are trying to prepare as much as possible for this visit and wish to solicit the viewpoint of the greater OSS community. Our plan so far is to clarify and correct any misconceptions he may have while at the same time giving him a fair shot at stating his position for the record. What approach do you believe is the most effective way to get the point across that the GPL stimulates innovation rather than hurts it?
------END------

So anyway, we going to talk to da man himself to get things straightened out. If you have any input or angles you think we should consider, please feel free to start a dialog below...

I'm glad this is open source because i don't want to shell out lots of money either.

Open source != gratis. Check for yourself.

Qmail is indeed, fuck head, open source. It is not however free for you to fuck with

What the hell?

You can find out more about Open Source here. Note in particular the parts about modification and redistribution. I don't know what you think open source means but you sound confused.

When you can code as well as DJB and have proven it by implementing a full featured internet application (ftp,smtp,http take your pick)

Does a two year stint at the ISC maintaining the BIND 8 resolver and tree propagation code count? Moreover, I'd like to think that there are those who are perhaps younger and smarter than me who might be able to "fuck with" and actually do something new with the given software. That's what open source is all about.

I only reply to this trash because someone who is following this thread might be mislead by your stupid pro-qmail arguments.

• Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  
• Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  
• Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

To whom it may concern:

I would like to congratulate Declan McCullagh for including links to DeCCS in his articles, "Congress asked to unpick copy lock laws" (10/03) and "Perspective: Coming to terms with copyright" (10/07).

Other sites (e.g., cnn.com) have bowed to overt industry & legal pressure to remove similar links from their sites, despite the obvious unconstitutional and frighteningly silencing nature of the DCMA. I commend your writers and your publication for this bold statement and support you 100% in your efforts to maintain the principles of the Freedom of the Press in this great country.

Thank you, and keep up the good work.

For some reason, the following (stupid) idea popped straight into my head when I read the post:

Cover yourself with the Halloween docs and go rampaging forth through the streets...

Sometimes I amaze even myself at my level of sadness.

The Open Source Definition doesn't let you stop people from profiting from your code. Sorry.
-russ

You're mistaken. It has everything to do with the license. Furthermore, the GPL fits the bill, if something is GPLed (as Chris said), that is sufficient to make it Open Source too.

You're mistaken. It has everything to do with the license. Furthermore, the GPL fits the bill, if something is GPLed (as Chris said), that is sufficient to make it Open Source too.

Aggie is an open source news aggregator. Basically, you give it the URL to your favorite RSS feeds, it downloads and parses them, and then builds a web page with the headlines. The really nice thing about it is that it supports RSS autodiscovery, so in many cases, you can simply provide the URL to the site itself, and it will find the RSS feed for you.

It does not use the GPL, but its license is considered open source by the OSI definition.

Another caveat is that it is written in C# and thus requires the .NET framework to run, so it isn't portable to other operating systems (not yet, at least). The upside is that the C# source code is fairly easy to follow, even for a dunce like me.