Slashdot Mirror

"What planet are you from?"

Earth, the only planet possible as far as I know.

"Stallman didn't make Linux possible, BSD did. Are you suggesting no other compilers or debuggers existed?"

Two things. BSD is not a compiler or a debugger. BSD is a license or an OS.

Compare http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php with http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

"Safari doesn't use any of Stallman's code, and if LGPL didn't exist (a license Stallman wasn't a fan of), another would have been used."

http://dot.kde.org/2003/01/07/apple-announces-new-safari-browser

In kicking off the Macworld Expo keynote, Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled a new Macintosh web browser named Safari. Jobs said the browser was "based on standards", "works with any Web site", has much-improved performance over IE (page-loading speed is "three times faster", JavaScript performs twice as fast and it launches "40% faster" - comparisons to Netscape 7.0 shows similar performance gains on the Macintosh platform). The KDE connection: "[f]or its Web page
rendering engine, Safari draws on software from the Konqueror open source project. Weighing in at less than one tenth the size of another open source renderer, Konqueror helps Safari stay lean and responsive." The good news for Konqueror: Apple, which said that it will be "a good open source citizen [and] share[] its enhancements with the Konqueror open source community", has today sent all changes, along with a detailed changelog, to the KHTML developers.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit to see how Apple developed into a non-helpful open source citizen.

"Steve Jobs wanted to make a computer for everyone, Stallman couldn't give a damn how difficult they are to use so long they use his license."

Steve Jobs wanted to make money from everyone, Stallman couldn't give a damn how much they charge as long they use the GPL license.

"HURD:0 Apple:Billions" :)

Agreed, on many levels!

"Apple doesn't even use gcc anymore and its days may be numbered."

Don't worry, breath deeply and slowly. Apple will probably survive Jobs demise.

AFAIK The BSD license don't mention that it is not possible to re-license under proprietary or GNU GPL. The BSD does not demand that the derivative work will be open source too. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

As usual, it depends on your definition of "free". The term "Red Hat" is indeed a trademark, and other people are not permitted to use it. Hence you can't reproduce packages that use that term without removing the term. Does that violate any definition of "open source"? Probably not: OSI's Open Source Definition says nothing about trademarks. I can't think of a single open source definition that excludes trademarks; in fact, the FSF have even explicitly declared that the use of trademarks is compatible with the GPL:

"However, some licenses had requirements that weren't really restrictive, because they were so easy to comply with. For example, some licenses say that they don't give you permission to use certain trademarks. That's not really an additional restriction: if that clause wasn't there, you still wouldn't have permission to use the trademark. We always said those licenses were compatible with GPLv2, too. Now, GPLv3 explicitly gives everyone permission to use code that has requirements like this. These new terms should help clear up misunderstandings about which licenses are GPL-compatible, why that is, and what you can do with GPL-compatible code."

Since it is blatantly obvious that most people accept the GPL is an "open source" license, the use of trademarks obviously does not make source code "not open source".

NASA Open Source Licensing

"Free Software" protects your four freedoms (as defined by the FSF). Open source does allow you to see the source, but also permits the use of more restrictive licenses.

In the Open Source Definition, criteria 5 and 6 protect freedom 0 under the Free Software Definition, criterion 2 protects freedom 1, criterion 1 protects freedom 2, and criteria 3, 7, and 8 protect freedom 3.

GNU is way, way more that just a host for X11. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most GNU installs did not even have X11 installed (there's a lot of severs on the planet).

If GNU is primarily a server operating system, then what's the corresponding desktop operating system called?

Sadly, this is not that surprising. We are talking about the Government of the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty's Government as it is officially known. If you were a queen (who in the 21st century still won't enter the House of Commons and only talk with the House of Lords) then who would you rather listen to: him or him? We in the open-source movement have a problem with image. The sad truth is that the very people thanks to whom that movement was started don't really care about they appearance, the arguments that would get to the Upper Class. They think that just because they are Right - which they are, no doubt about that - everyone will automatically recognize that and make decision based on what would be the best for the humanity. Sadly we live in the world of politicians, lobbies, parties, Kings and Queens. We have to recognize that and work on our appearance if we ever want to go main stream.

After all, open source was created to free people from proprietary code and people telling them what they can't do.

Free Software and specifically copyleft (as implemented by the GPL) was created to free people from proprietary code. Permissive licenses such as that of BSD and MIT were created to encourage as many people as possible to use the code rather than keep it Free for everyone. Both copyleft and permissive licenses make something both Free and Open Source and each has its place, depending on whether the goal is to keep the software Free for everyone or have it used by anyone in any way, possibly including making it proprietary.

Open Source was created to market Free Software to business. That was a important role which hadn't been fulfilled by the FSF or anyone else, so OSI's work is very important. However, since it's focused on marketing, it sometimes forgets about their Free Software roots. I think it's a shame that the FSF doesn't emphasize the value of Free Software to business more and the OSI doesn't emphasize the importance of the freedom of Open Source software more, since they have much more in common than not.

There are a lot of people who use IP law to keep their ideas available to others without allow those same others from profiting from their work. I do believe that's what is behind the idea of Copyleft & the use of IP law in OSS.

You're wrong. A license isn't neither Open Source (as defined by the OSI) nor Free Software (as defined by the FSF) if it prevents licensees from selling copies of the software.

Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

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.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Crafty is not open source software, though its license has similarities to an open source software license.
Crafty is for "personal use only", which means that it fails the Open Source Definition criteria "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".

Crafty's main.c file says: "All rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced in any form or by any means, for other than your personal use, without the express written permission of the authors. This program may not be used in whole, nor in part, to enter any computer chess competition without written permission from the authors. Such permission will include the requirement that the program be entered under the name "Crafty" so that the program's ancestry will be known."

Fruit up to 2.1 is open source software (GPL)

Welcome to the Crafty Chess page

Crafty 23.4 is now available. This release includes some code clean-up, a few bug fixes including a timing bug, and small strenght increase.

Crafty
Crafty is a free, open-source computer chess program developed by Dr. Robert M. Hyatt. Crafty is constantly being improved by a small team of contributors, including Dr. Hyatt. To learn more about Crafty, visit Dr. Hyatt's home page.

Really ?

Crafty is not open source software, though its license has similarities to an open source software license. Crafty is for "personal use only", which means that it fails the Open Source Definition criteria "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".

Crafty's main.c file says: "All rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced in any form or by any means, for other than your personal use, without the express written permission of the authors. This program may not be used in whole, nor in part, to enter any computer chess competition without written permission from the authors. Such permission will include the requirement that the program be entered under the name "Crafty" so that the program's ancestry will be known."

Fruit up to 2.1 is open source software (GPL)

The definition of open source is maintained here: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
It does not meet the requirements, therefore it is not technically open source.

No, you're wrong. If the source is available, then the source is available and that's it. Open Source has additional licensing requirements http://www.opensource.org/

But didn't their VP in charge of open source quit in disgust a while ago?

I don't know. I guess we should find out for sure before judging. As for Microsoft's open source, there are plenty of projects that they have done. They have also supported external projects too.

I've never programmed in VB (due to MS loathing and distrust), but it always looked like a nice way to build macros for office, and quickly build prototypes.

The Office macros (Visual Basic for Applications) was one of Microsoft's big failures as it was responsible for a massive security hole on Windows. People who were smart enough not to open executables emailed to them would happily open a DOC file from any unknown source which was just as insecure.

It would be great if they open sourced VB6 without their normal strings attached, like it can only be used in projects for Windows platforms after MS has "thoroughly inspected" the project. If they really do use an OSI approved license, I might actually use it on Linux.

Well they do have MS-PL and MS-RL listed as OSI approved licences. I searched the text, but neither of them mention any Windows platform requirement.

But didn't their VP in charge of open source quit in disgust a while ago?

I don't know. I guess we should find out for sure before judging. As for Microsoft's open source, there are plenty of projects that they have done. They have also supported external projects too.

I've never programmed in VB (due to MS loathing and distrust), but it always looked like a nice way to build macros for office, and quickly build prototypes.

The Office macros (Visual Basic for Applications) was one of Microsoft's big failures as it was responsible for a massive security hole on Windows. People who were smart enough not to open executables emailed to them would happily open a DOC file from any unknown source which was just as insecure.

It would be great if they open sourced VB6 without their normal strings attached, like it can only be used in projects for Windows platforms after MS has "thoroughly inspected" the project. If they really do use an OSI approved license, I might actually use it on Linux.

Well they do have MS-PL and MS-RL listed as OSI approved licences. I searched the text, but neither of them mention any Windows platform requirement.

Software doesn't have to be approved by the OSI in order to be open source. In fact, end-products are not, by definition, "approved by the OSI". Licenses are. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

For your review, here is OSI's own definition of what Open Source means: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. Truecrypt meets every one of these criteria. According to OSI, software which meets these criteria is open source. However, of course, it's not licensed to carry the OSI "logo" as their license hasn't been scrutinized by the OSI.

Again, trying to be helpful in my correction. Let's review. You state "Truecrypt is not open source", whereas it is open source by OSIs own definition. You state "it has not been approved by OSI", but products are never approved by OSI. OSI examines licenses, not products. So, the closest to a correct statement you could get, would be:

"Truecrypt is open source, however its license has not been approved by the OSI, therefore I choose not to use it."

Software doesn't have to be approved by the OSI in order to be open source. In fact, end-products are not, by definition, "approved by the OSI". Licenses are. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

For your review, here is OSI's own definition of what Open Source means: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. Truecrypt meets every one of these criteria. According to OSI, software which meets these criteria is open source. However, of course, it's not licensed to carry the OSI "logo" as their license hasn't been scrutinized by the OSI.

Again, trying to be helpful in my correction. Let's review. You state "Truecrypt is not open source", whereas it is open source by OSIs own definition. You state "it has not been approved by OSI", but products are never approved by OSI. OSI examines licenses, not products. So, the closest to a correct statement you could get, would be:

"Truecrypt is open source, however its license has not been approved by the OSI, therefore I choose not to use it."

This is tired old FUD that you Microsoft shills trot out all the time.

Can you name one technology that Microsoft innovated? And by the way, it doesn't count if they bought it from someone else.

Ok, now to your original question:
1. Alchemy
2. Bespin
3. Bitcoin
4. eyeOS
5. KDE Social Desktop
6. Ksplice
7. Unity
8. HTTP, the Web, TCP/IP, and ARPAnet
9. X Windows
10. Perl
11. Slashdot
12. Google keeps playing with open source, but can't make up their minds. Here are some
13. Microsoft plays with open source, here are some. This must just eat you up. Too bad, Open Source is everywhere.
14. Here are some more innovative open source projects.

Now, I expect you to provide at least 5 innovative projects Microsoft created within the last 10 years. (Sorry, you can't count Windows or Office, since those ideas are much older, and are no longer considered innovative.)

Failing that, at least read what I wrote.

This is tired old FUD that you Microsoft shills trot out all the time.

Can you name one technology that Microsoft innovated? And by the way, it doesn't count if they bought it from someone else.

Ok, now to your original question:
1. Alchemy
2. Bespin
3. Bitcoin
4. eyeOS
5. KDE Social Desktop
6. Ksplice
7. Unity
8. HTTP, the Web, TCP/IP, and ARPAnet
9. X Windows
10. Perl
11. Slashdot
12. Google keeps playing with open source, but can't make up their minds. Here are some
13. Microsoft plays with open source, here are some. This must just eat you up. Too bad, Open Source is everywhere.
14. Here are some more innovative open source projects.

Now, I expect you to provide at least 5 innovative projects Microsoft created within the last 10 years. (Sorry, you can't count Windows or Office, since those ideas are much older, and are no longer considered innovative.)

Failing that, at least read what I wrote.

If you want to define "open source" strictly according to the Open Source Definition then you are correct, and I need to be careful about using that term because in that sense it is very narrow. Up till now, by "open source" I have meant not the letter of the OSD definition, but the development model. While Google does use open source licenses, it very much does not like or use the open source development model. And in that Google causes a great deal of harm to both itself and the community.

In my opinion, the license is just one part of what the world commonly understands to be "open source". However I will be careful in future to be specific about whether I mean a kind of license, a community, or a development approach.

You're either for software freedom or your not. GPL restricts what you can, therefor is not free.

This kind of "either you see it my way our you're wrong" statement is NOT a good argument.

There are real reasons why the GPL versions (and other licenses) are problematic for various folks, and this kind of assertion acknowledges none of them.

You can learn the factual basis for arguments against or in favor of various open source or free software licenses at the OSI site and at the FSF site.

Not. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the people who invented the term: "open source doesn't just mean access to the source code". You can read the rest of the details there.

Wrong. BSD is not "Free Software," but it is "Open Source.". Free Software is a very specific term that RMS invented specifically to differentiate GPL from BSD and to highlight his philosophical differences with the latter, while the term Open Source was invented to encompass both BSD and GPL (and a range of other licenses).

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Wrong. BSD is not "Free Software," but it is "Open Source.". Free Software is a very specific term that RMS invented specifically to differentiate GPL from BSD and to highlight his philosophical differences with the latter, while the term Open Source was invented to encompass both BSD and GPL (and a range of other licenses).

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Mozilla products don't use the GPL, they use their own license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1

You keep repeating that - you are wrong. In fact, the term "Open Source" was invented to include BSD and GPL under the same general term.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

You keep repeating that - you are wrong. In fact, the term "Open Source" was invented to include BSD and GPL under the same general term.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

I also find it hard to believe that they would exclude their own open source licenses on their own platform.

Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
Microsoft Reciprocal License

Considering that Microsoft is more anti-copyleft than anti-open source, I would have to agree that the language is specifically against copyleft licenses.

I also find it hard to believe that they would exclude their own open source licenses on their own platform.

Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
Microsoft Reciprocal License

Considering that Microsoft is more anti-copyleft than anti-open source, I would have to agree that the language is specifically against copyleft licenses.

This also excludes licenses published by Microsoft, such as the Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL), which is approved as an Open Source license by OSI and a Free Software license by FSF (although incompatible with the GPL).

-molo

Like the BSD license?

Hmm, not sure where you want to go with this, as your comment doesn't particularly refute any of my points. Doesn't matter, I don't think you're going to reply, seeing how this is a tad old and you don't have actual arguments anyway ;)

Fanboy,

OK, I'm guilty of starting the previous comment with a teaser myself... but care to elaborate?
Prepending disclaimers to everything is cumbersome, but here you go: I'm not affiliated with Google, don't have a particular interest in seeing them dominate or anything like that. I do like pointing out obvious nonsense on the internet :>
What is it you're a fanboy for?

Seriously, Google starting to charge for VP8 at some point is about as likely as Microsoft opensourcing their most recent Windows and Office.

Look at the political and corporate landscape of 20 years ago and see how many ways you can begin the sentence, "...then seemed about as likely as Microsoft opensourcing their most recent Windows and Office." It takes a teenager, or someone with a teenage mindset, to look so much in the here and now.

Well, I'm obviously too young (but teenager? not so much) to have had a good overview over the corporate landscape of 20 years ago... but I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft is as likely to opensource their products now as they were then.
Besides, even just 5 or so years are half an eternity in tech, and I think my point holds pretty well for such time scales.

The other "as likely as..." things? Well, people claiming this for Linux (server), laptops, Myspace (later Facebook) just lack foresight. ;P

Also, Windows source code. "I meant open in precisely the way I want it to be open." Of course you did.

I was just using the common knowledge standard definition. Or would you seriously claim here and now, on a tech site, that the Windows source code is open source? And then you talk about "open exactly as I want it"...

Also, of course Google hasn't promised a blanko cheque for every user of VP8. MPEG-LA hasn't done it either for h264.

Which, after a long and complicated series of technical legal arguments, allows us to conclude that you're no safer with one than the other.

Exactly what I tried to conclude. You're not less safe with Google just because they don't give you unlimited insurance.

I see no problem whatsoever with suing when terms are found to be unreasonable after the fact. Once again, if you don't like terms, don't agree to them in the first place. Yes, clicking "OK" counts.

Not all licenses say the same thing at all. There are some licenses that are better, some that are worse, and some that are just plain weird. Licenses usually protect the interests and rights of the copyright holder, and it shouldn't be surprising that most companies have similar interests.

Now, IANAL, and this is certainly not legal advice, but if there's some term of a contract that's outright unreasonable, I'd say go ahead and break it. Don't complain when you get sued, but by all means, drag the contract through court and fight it out. Get that unreasonable term invalidated!

The "one part invalidated" clause protects the company against having the whole contract thrown out by a jurisdiction who finds some small part unacceptable. Usually, that protection is provided by legislation anyway, but it's not hard to imagine a jurisdiction's laws containing wording like "Any contract that requires X is invalid".

First of all, it is technically open source, but the license the community edition uses means it cannot legally be used by businesses.

That is not technically "open source" by any common definition, most particularly not that of the Open Source Initiative, which prohibits discrimination against fields of endeavor.

Most standards that actually work have open-source reference implementations.

Then I guess video codecs are exceptions to your "most standards". ISO publishes standards, many of which are standards for mathematical systems. These have a reference implementation in a computer program whose source code is available to the public. However, due to ISO's patent policy, many standards cannot be implemented in open source software as Open Source Initiative defines it. For example, ISO allows MPEG-LA to attach a uniform royalty to the MPEG-4 standard, including the controversial AVC Advanced Video Codec, which breaks OSD section 1's requirement that open source software allow royalty-free distribution.

According to the OSI, it *is not* an "open standard"
http://opensource.org/osr

According to the EU, it *is not* a "free and open standard"
http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition

You are conflating ISO with "open standard".

"open" is may be interpreted differently. The word generally means "not closed".

The common use of "open" in computing has changed quite a bit in the past two decades.

C++ was not an ISO standard until 1998.
Somehow it was used it before then.

In 1997, if there was a competing language standard that was patented and required royalty payment, called LangX.

Which would be considered "free"
Which would be considered "open"
Which would be considered an "open standard"

Your comment assumes that these are all the same question.
(the summary only discusses freedom, and you comment about "open" assuming that it means "open standard")

Of course the word "open" is evolving as well (partly because of "open source" in 1998), so the question may be answered differently today than back then.

The OSI certainly would answer differently than the ISO.
http://opensource.org/osr

Really? Can you contribute code to H.264? Can you use the spec in your own software and publish it with out a large amount of jumping through hoops?
Really H.264 may have been public but I would not call it open. WebM is now what I would consider to be open as is Theora and Dirac http://diracvideo.org/ .
So no I do not feel that H.254 meets the definition of open as far as development goes.
So yes it really is a bit of a reach IMHO.

When the hell did having to accept contributions become a requirement to be open? Is this some new "open" you're making up, because that isn't a requirement of Free Software or Open Source Software, and the right to refuse contributions is frequently exercised. This is why people fork projects. Go ahead and "fork" H.264, make up your own new standard without infringing on its patents. That is encouraged by the patent system, and it's even taught in public schools. Of course you all know this already, the real problem is finding a reason for anyone to give a damn about your fork when even $free isn't enough to 'sell' it.

A valid argument _might_ be that I cannot freely distribute your open source, licensed H.264 implementation without myself paying royalties. That would break rule #1 of the OSD which is necessary because if I can't give _your_ software, in _whole_, to other people, it's not really "open".

1. Viral Marketing
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.

Yah. It says that, right up front so you don't accidentally confuse it with Free Software which requires that I be able to give your stuff away for free. Hey, at least that IS consistent with the meaning of "free".

There are open standards, and open source, and they are not the same. The IETF, for example (subject to yesterdays Birthday Article) deals with open standards. Linux, by contrast, is open source.

An open standard means that no one party controls the generation of the standard, and that the standard is openly available. Generally, open standards are developed by SDOs (Standards Defining Organizations, such as the IETF or the W3C). As a general rule "anyone" can participate in their creation (but this may require that you or your company be a member of some organization or have some other qualifications). Many open standards have patent encumbrances. Typically, SDOs seek RAND (Reasonable and NonDiscriminatory) licensing terms; some even require a particular patent licensing policy as a condition for participation. The IETF, however, requires disclosure and seeks, but does not strictly require, RAND terms. While an open standard may have some code associated with it, typically the entire point of an open standard is to allow you to go off and write your own code, generally under whatever code license you want. This is how the Internet was developed.

Open source means that the source is licensed by GPL or BSD> or some similar licensing. Now, generally open source means that the code is available, but in practice many open source projects are more or less closed to outside participation, and they frequently do not provide documentation sufficient to replicate what they are doing.

There are open standards, and open source, and they are not the same. The IETF, for example (subject to yesterdays Birthday Article) deals with open standards. Linux, by contrast, is open source.

An open standard means that no one party controls the generation of the standard, and that the standard is openly available. Generally, open standards are developed by SDOs (Standards Defining Organizations, such as the IETF or the W3C). As a general rule "anyone" can participate in their creation (but this may require that you or your company be a member of some organization or have some other qualifications). Many open standards have patent encumbrances. Typically, SDOs seek RAND (Reasonable and NonDiscriminatory) licensing terms; some even require a particular patent licensing policy as a condition for participation. The IETF, however, requires disclosure and seeks, but does not strictly require, RAND terms. While an open standard may have some code associated with it, typically the entire point of an open standard is to allow you to go off and write your own code, generally under whatever code license you want. This is how the Internet was developed.

Open source means that the source is licensed by GPL or BSD> or some similar licensing. Now, generally open source means that the code is available, but in practice many open source projects are more or less closed to outside participation, and they frequently do not provide documentation sufficient to replicate what they are doing.

> Well then perhaps you should stop trying to do so. Open means documented and interoperable, it does not mean patent-unencumbered.

"open" does not mean that according to any dictionary. Open generally means "not closed".

As for "open standard", generally open source developers have a different definition than the one you give.

Using the dictionary expansion of "open", we get "a standard which is not closed".

I guess "closed standard" has a different meaning to different people.

Here is the "OSI" definition of "open standard", which is different from the ISO definition.

http://opensource.org/osr

Oh i see, so I guess this is nonsense after all~ The Open Source Definition

Wrong. Only a very small subset (GPL and its derivatives) of the Open Source licenses actually require you to share your source with your binaries. Most (BSD, MIT, Apache, MPL, zlib) don't.

That's a very misleading statement. While there are tons of OSI-approved licenses, and many others that haven't been subjected to any formal review criteria, I'd love to see statistics on how many projects use licenses that require code sharing versus those that don't. Given the enormous growth in popularity of the GPL alone over the last decade alone, and my personal memory of over 20 years of open source and free software, I strongly suspect the number of projects that require sharing code will dwarf the alternative.

In fact, the GPL seems to have become the "default" license for free software in many respects, even though many people who license their code under the GPL honestly don't understand the license at all (that comes directly from my personal interactions with lots of developers). This is an unfortunate state of affairs from some perspectives, but it's reality. I license the majority of my code under BSD-style licenses, but I freely (haha, I'll be here all week, tip your waiter, try the veal) admit that I'm most likely in the minority these days.

Open thing is part of the Free thing

according to the OSI there is a whole spectrum between open and free
free and open are orthogonal concept

If you look at the list of requirements for a program to be Open Source,
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
No 6 says "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". Saying you can't use it on a production server doesn't appear to comply with that.

Similarly, the Free Software definition
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Freedom 0 says you should be allowed to run the program for any purpose.

So yes, I would say OpenSolaris has been killed off and replaced with a demoware program.

"The OSI certification made it mandatory for source code to be made available. Else, the certification will be revoked. Read the OSD again at http://opensource.org/docs/osd and burn the document contents on your mind. With BSD license, making the source code available IS MANDATORY!"

1. It's not in the license.
2. Still doesn't mean people down the chain can necessarily get at it, and they certainly aren't guaranteed access to derived code.
3. You might want to check out this thread in which it is discussed and people come to the conclusion the the OSI term "source must be available" refers to whether a piece of software is open source, not a given license.

"With many companies and individuals listed in my previous post out there, I dare say I am living in col-hard reality!"

Yet end users still don't have the freedom to get the source code for derived versions under the BSD license, a freedom granted under GPL, and a freedom you don't consider worth protecting. I don't consider the freedom to make closed derivatives worth protecting.
If you still don't accept that GPL and BSD provide different freedoms for different people, well, I've done my best. You're still wrong.

"you have a different understanding of the word mandatory to everyone else in the world. The BSD license does no make it mandatory to do this."

The OSI certification made it mandatory for source code to be made available. Else, the certification will be revoked. Read the OSD again at http://opensource.org/docs/osd and burn the document contents on your mind. With BSD license, making the source code available IS MANDATORY!

"Then you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's that simple."

With many companies and individuals listed in my previous post out there, I dare say I am living in col-hard reality!

"Really, it didn't, you might want to look at the legal situation a bit more closely if you think that's the case. There is no transfer of copyright. You simply have a license to use the code under the terms of the BSD license. These terms are very, very permissive as we know, but they are still there and must be complied with. If copyright was actually transferred you wouldn't have to abide by the attribution clause because you would own the copyright. What you have is a license, how many more times does this need to be said?"

How many times I have said that transfer of copyright is possible, like in CC-BY? I can take a CC-BY article, change a font and typeface here and there, and make the authorship as me as long as the credit is given.

"Yes. It would be totally pointless, but you could, easily do so.

More to the point I was actually trying to make - Developer A writes BSD code. Developer B grabs a copy, alters it, embeds it in some device or program. This takes them 2 years. User C buys the device or program. In those two years Developer A got bored and took down their website. Now there is no code at all available to user C, let alone the code that is actually running on their device. With GPL Developer B would be responsible for getting the code to User C. With BSD nobody has to give it to them."

So, your problem is mostly technical instead of legal. Here I thought Developer A actively prevent User C from accessing Developer A's source code. Then there is nothing wrong at all with what Developer A or B has done, under the BSD license. You have to prove malice upon the part of Developer A to even make this fly on self-respecting USA courts.

"Then you should know that even when using the same ARM core, things can be set up and attached to the core in multiple different ways, with multiple different GPIO/MPP/IRQ configurations, onboard memory devices, ethernet controllers, SATA setups, custom button and LED controllers and a multitude of other board specific stuff."

AFAIK, Western Digital doesn't come out with one distinct Linux mini-distro for each hardware config they have out there. Bare-metal coding does have its drawbacks when it comes to maintainability but the company at least have one (actually, a few) base mini-distro they are basing their firmware with. You are over exaggerating the complexities of the firmware, but then again if you want to say that the developers can be retarded sometimes, I don't really have anything to say against that.

"It's a freedom to deny freedom to others. It is a drawback for anybody that you give the derivative program too. They have no rights under BSD."

I don't give the derivative program of my program to anybody. The freedom to deny freedom to others is a plus, unlike what you may have said. If the users of the derivative program doesn't like it, then they can always go to the original program. Even the developers of the derivative program cannot stop them.

"Sorry, can you point to the part in the BSD license that says that I have to make any code I release under BSD available forever and to anyone that asks?

I don't remember that section.

The BSD does nothing to guarantee that someone who receives a binary can get the source, any source.
That is the fact of the matter.
It does nothing to guarantee anything and that's its strength to you, it's also its weakness to me."

The OSI certification for BSD license (3-clause) stipulates that it must follow the Open Source Definition guidelines. One of the guidelines mandates that source code must always be made available. This alone makes the users of BSD license programs to make available the relevant source codes for their program.

Well, I can be wrong if I somehow miss the news that BSD OSI certification has been revoked. Can you point me to such a source? The OSD is available at http://opensource.org/docs/osd and it applies to BSD license too.

"The GPL puts the responsibility for the source onto t

Nah, it's pretty open
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/postgresql
Maybe you are thinking of mysql

No need to look up dictionary on this one, or perform some kind of "common sense" self-enlightenment - you just need to read history behind the term "open source" and how it was coined and what it has meant throughout.

MS Windows sources are "open" to many governments and large corporations, therefore, it's open source too, right? Wrong. Try a more common sense and industry recognized definition, where redistribution is one of the most important aspects.