Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: opensource.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to opensource.org.

Comments · 1,973

  1. OSD == DFSG by yerricde · · Score: 1 · on Macromedia Applies For OSI Certification

    The acid test of any license is whether it's DFSG free [...] Of note is the Darwin Streaming Server from Apple which, while passing the OSI open-source definition is not actually Free Software because it demands [...]

    Actually, the OSI's Open Source Definition and the Debian Free Software Guidelines are very nearly the same document.

  2. Re:In other news, RMS dies of acute depression by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2 · on Macromedia Applies For OSI Certification

    Well, we gave CmdrTaco an early look at the Open Source trademark icon, and he said "Nahhhhh, if I can't change it, I'm not going to use it."

    -russ

  3. Re:Acid test by Phexro · · Score: 2, Informative · on Macromedia Applies For OSI Certification

    In other words, Open Source Software is not Free Software. Thanks, Einstein.

    How is that insightful?

  4. Misuse of terms by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
    There is a lot of misuse of terms on SlashDot I think; "Open Source vs Microsoft" == "GNU/Linux vs Microsoft", "OSS" == "GPL Software", etc.

    These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:

    To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.

    This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?
  5. Misuse of terms by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
    There is a lot of misuse of terms on SlashDot I think; "Open Source vs Microsoft" == "GNU/Linux vs Microsoft", "OSS" == "GPL Software", etc.

    These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:

    To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.

    This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?
  6. Misuse of terms by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
    There is a lot of misuse of terms on SlashDot I think; "Open Source vs Microsoft" == "GNU/Linux vs Microsoft", "OSS" == "GPL Software", etc.

    These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:

    To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.

    This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?
  7. Misuse of terms by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
    There is a lot of misuse of terms on SlashDot I think; "Open Source vs Microsoft" == "GNU/Linux vs Microsoft", "OSS" == "GPL Software", etc.

    These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:

    To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.

    This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?
  8. Misuse of terms by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
    There is a lot of misuse of terms on SlashDot I think; "Open Source vs Microsoft" == "GNU/Linux vs Microsoft", "OSS" == "GPL Software", etc.

    These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:

    To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.

    This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?
  9. Misuse of terms by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
    There is a lot of misuse of terms on SlashDot I think; "Open Source vs Microsoft" == "GNU/Linux vs Microsoft", "OSS" == "GPL Software", etc.

    These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:

    To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.

    This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?
  10. Misuse of terms by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
    There is a lot of misuse of terms on SlashDot I think; "Open Source vs Microsoft" == "GNU/Linux vs Microsoft", "OSS" == "GPL Software", etc.

    These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:

    To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.

    This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?
  11. Re:Thanks, MS. by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Insightful · on Responses to ADTI Paper
    Yup, I think that's the point I've always wondered at. Why is MS so upset at the GPL?

    This goes back to the Halloween Papers - which correctly identified the GPL as "immune to FUD tactics". But that's all they've got, so they're trying it again and again.

    Microsoft's competition model is to wound their enemy (Netscape, Word Perfect, Novell) and wait for them bleed to death. Copyleft (the GPL, the MPL) is the wound to Microsoft that they cannot heal.

  12. Re:The most infuriating paragraph by Erotomek · · Score: 2, Interesting · on ADTI Whitepaper Released

    Now I gotta go take a walk, because I am worked up. But man, this is the most blatant and desperate FUD I have read in a long, long time.

    The only thing that worries me is that this kind of bull shit is everything that the average person will ever read about free vs. proprietary software. 99.999% of people won't ever read the evil GPL/LGPL, or anything about the FSF and GNU philosophy, about OSI, about open source and free software, et cetera.

    Some time ago, I got a phone call from my friend, who said that his mother wants to talk with me about computers. She told me that her whole company office is down because of some e-mail worm or trojan and they have to install every software from scratch. She told me that her son told her that I could help her in choosing the most secure operating system.

    Here I started to think: "Should I tell her to choose OpenBSD? I don't know, I'm not the expert with OpenBSD, so I wouldn't be able to help them so much as if they chose Debian, but maybe her staff would be more familiar with Red Hat..."

    She interrupted my thinking process by continuing her question about the most secure OS:
    — Do you think Windows 98 or maybe 95? I've heard that NT is the most secure OS, but I don't know.
    I realized that she knows only about different Microsoft products...
    — Well, if you want to have a secure environment and don't worry about all of those Internet worms and viruses, I wouldn't exactly recommend Windows — I said.
    — What do you mean? Not Windows? But we need to have WWW and e-mail so I don't think we could work under DOS — she said.
    — No, I wasn't talking about DOS. I personally prefer the OS called Debian GNU/Linux, it's not made by Microsoft, it's a very high quality OS and 1000s of professional applications. It has a UNIX security model, which...
    — But we have already paid for Microsoft licenses.
    — Don't worry, you don't have to pay anything for Debian, you can borrow my CDs and install Debian on as many computers as you like. You see, it's a free software and...
    — Oh, no. We have to pay for the software in my company, we can't have pirate software here!
    — No, you don't understand, Debian is a non-profit international organization collecting other people's free software, so you can legally use their software without paying for it. Most of the software is under the GNU General Public License and it says that you...
    — Well, I would prefer to use a professional software from Microsoft, so please tell me again, which version of Windows is the most secure operating system?
    — Then I'm sorry but I'm not a Microsoft software expert.

    The moral is that few years ago I was telling everyone and his grandma to use Debian or free software in general, but now I care much less. Most of people won't forget about the pro-MS, anti-FS FUD propaganda, no matter what I say. Most of people believe in news from corporations like MSNBC and take them as objective. Similarly, most of people listen to POP music and the POP Star of the day — not Chopin, Mozart or Liszt.

    So as long as I have my Debian I'm happy, no matter that most of people will never use Debian and will never listen to Liszt's Second Hungarian Rhapsody.

    If one day I see that everyone uses Debian, I'll start wondering what's wrong with it. As Mark Twain once said: "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

  13. Re:The most infuriating paragraph by Erotomek · · Score: 2, Interesting · on ADTI Whitepaper Released

    Now I gotta go take a walk, because I am worked up. But man, this is the most blatant and desperate FUD I have read in a long, long time.

    The only thing that worries me is that this kind of bull shit is everything that the average person will ever read about free vs. proprietary software. 99.999% of people won't ever read the evil GPL/LGPL, or anything about the FSF and GNU philosophy, about OSI, about open source and free software, et cetera.

    Some time ago, I got a phone call from my friend, who said that his mother wants to talk with me about computers. She told me that her whole company office is down because of some e-mail worm or trojan and they have to install every software from scratch. She told me that her son told her that I could help her in choosing the most secure operating system.

    Here I started to think: "Should I tell her to choose OpenBSD? I don't know, I'm not the expert with OpenBSD, so I wouldn't be able to help them so much as if they chose Debian, but maybe her staff would be more familiar with Red Hat..."

    She interrupted my thinking process by continuing her question about the most secure OS:
    — Do you think Windows 98 or maybe 95? I've heard that NT is the most secure OS, but I don't know.
    I realized that she knows only about different Microsoft products...
    — Well, if you want to have a secure environment and don't worry about all of those Internet worms and viruses, I wouldn't exactly recommend Windows — I said.
    — What do you mean? Not Windows? But we need to have WWW and e-mail so I don't think we could work under DOS — she said.
    — No, I wasn't talking about DOS. I personally prefer the OS called Debian GNU/Linux, it's not made by Microsoft, it's a very high quality OS and 1000s of professional applications. It has a UNIX security model, which...
    — But we have already paid for Microsoft licenses.
    — Don't worry, you don't have to pay anything for Debian, you can borrow my CDs and install Debian on as many computers as you like. You see, it's a free software and...
    — Oh, no. We have to pay for the software in my company, we can't have pirate software here!
    — No, you don't understand, Debian is a non-profit international organization collecting other people's free software, so you can legally use their software without paying for it. Most of the software is under the GNU General Public License and it says that you...
    — Well, I would prefer to use a professional software from Microsoft, so please tell me again, which version of Windows is the most secure operating system?
    — Then I'm sorry but I'm not a Microsoft software expert.

    The moral is that few years ago I was telling everyone and his grandma to use Debian or free software in general, but now I care much less. Most of people won't forget about the pro-MS, anti-FS FUD propaganda, no matter what I say. Most of people believe in news from corporations like MSNBC and take them as objective. Similarly, most of people listen to POP music and the POP Star of the day — not Chopin, Mozart or Liszt.

    So as long as I have my Debian I'm happy, no matter that most of people will never use Debian and will never listen to Liszt's Second Hungarian Rhapsody.

    If one day I see that everyone uses Debian, I'll start wondering what's wrong with it. As Mark Twain once said: "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

  14. Don't Get Facts Get In The Way of FUD by ArtDent · · Score: 2, Troll · on ADTI Whitepaper Released
    Let's play count the errors!
    ...Software's locked state is also described as its "executable" format. Executable software is commonly sold in stores and available commercially. Executable software accompanies binary code also known as machine code.

    What exactly was the difference again between executable software and binary code?

    ...The GPL is one of the most uniquely restrictive product agreements in the technology industry. As expected, the controversy of the GPL is rooted in the language of its license.

    All proprietary licenses that I've ever seen place restrictions on how a user may use the software. The GPL contains no such restrictions. The GPL only resticts the way in which he can redistribute a modified version of the software, an activity expressly prohibited by proprietary licenses. Simply put, any claim that the GPL is more restrictive than proprietary licenses is laughably incorrect.

    ...In 1989, Stallman decided that the open source community should be more organized and founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF). FSF and Stallman evolved the open source discussion into an advocacy group, promoting the idea that all software should be free.

    According to the Open Source Initiative, "the 'open source' label itself came out of a strategy session held on February 3rd 1998," in reaction to "Netscape's accouncements that it planned to give away the source of its browser." The term's purpose was "to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with 'free software' in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape." The attempt to paint the FSF as a radical offshoot of the open source movement is completely without factual basis.

    FSF became well known for its position of free software as well as its radical ideas to end patents on inventions.

    The FSF has expressed no position on the patenting of inventions, in general, but only on the patenting of software.

    Jim Clark, the founder of computer maker Silicon Graphics and expert on UNIX standards, founded Netscape, and set out to compete directly with the public domain product Mosaic.

    According the NCSA's Procedures for Licensing NCSA Mosaic, "the software is not public domain, freeware or shareware." But then, we already knew that...

    ...Mosaic was an open source product and could be downloaded for free by individuals and companies wishing to use the Internet for internal communications. Through a commercial partner, Spyglass, NCSA began widely licensing Mosaic to computer companies including IBM, DEC, AT&T, and NEC.

    If it required a commercial partner to do this licensing, then clearly it wasn't even open source (as the term came to mean, when it was coined five years later), much less in the public domain!

    At this point, I get tired of counting. This paper allegedly "details the complex issues surrounding open source," but fails to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the term itself, competing licensing models, or the technology involved. It is, quite simply, not worthy of any serious consideration.

  15. Re:RMS's tirades good for Open Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Ask Ransom Love about UnitedLinux

    [...] Or do you think that the Corporate Suits see this as another reason to stick with Microsoft because the Open Source movement behaves childishly when dealing with internal conflicts.
    --
    MacOS X: UNIX for people that bathe daily.

    'Nuff said...

    (Btw: RMS is a member (founder) of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement, for God's sake! You may want to visit FSF and OSI websites to get some clue about it.)

    —

  16. Re:Confusion About Open Source by N0Nick · · Score: 1 · on Open Source Limitations?
    The OSI is associated in its ideas with the FSF's definition of free software:
    How is "open source" related to "free software"?

    The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for "free software" on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping. The winning substance has not changed, the losing attitude and symbolism have. See the discussion of marketing for hackers for more.

    So that it is clear what kind of software we are talking about, we publish standards for open-source licenses. We have created a certification mark, "OSI Certified," to be applied only to software that is distributed under an open-source license that meets criteria set by the Open Source Initiative as representatives of the open software community. We intend this mark to become a widely recognized and valued symbol, clearly indicating that software does, in fact, have the properties that the community has associated with the descriptive term `open source'.

    (The OSI FAQ)


    The only definition for open-source software is a software that gives away its source code. How it's done cannot be defined by one person.
  17. Re:Confusion About Open Source by sheldon · · Score: 2 · on Open Source Limitations?

    Fine... From the Open Source Definition

    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.

  18. Re:Confusion About Open Source by sheldon · · Score: 2 · on Open Source Limitations?

    Fine... From the Open Source Definition

    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.

  19. Re:Confusion About Open Source by sheldon · · Score: 2 · on Open Source Limitations?

    Fine... From the Open Source Definition

    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.

  20. Re:If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about? by Erotomek · · Score: 1 · on RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License

    What will companies think about paying per-seat licensing and having to manage all the licensing nightmares associated with it when most of what they are buying is under the GPL?

    Well, actually it's not the case. GPL is not an EULA so as the end users they can do whatever they want, without even the need to accept the license:

    "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program [...]

    You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."

    Those companies would have to accept the GPL only if they wanted to redistribute the software, and even then, they would have much more licensing nightmares with the proprietary parts of the system, since they are not allowed to redistribute them under any condition at all, unlike the copylefted software.

    RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.

    You seem to confuse the FSF's stanpoint about free software represented by Richard Stallman with the OSI's open source point of view.

  21. Re:If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about? by Erotomek · · Score: 1 · on RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License

    What will companies think about paying per-seat licensing and having to manage all the licensing nightmares associated with it when most of what they are buying is under the GPL?

    Well, actually it's not the case. GPL is not an EULA so as the end users they can do whatever they want, without even the need to accept the license:

    "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program [...]

    You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."

    Those companies would have to accept the GPL only if they wanted to redistribute the software, and even then, they would have much more licensing nightmares with the proprietary parts of the system, since they are not allowed to redistribute them under any condition at all, unlike the copylefted software.

    RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.

    You seem to confuse the FSF's stanpoint about free software represented by Richard Stallman with the OSI's open source point of view.

  22. They've done this before... by Da+Schmiz · · Score: 2 · on 'Think Tank' Issues Microsoft-Funded Troll
    Keep in mind that Microsoft has bought studies before: (I had tried to post this yesterday, but for some reason none of the CGIs at slashdot were working. Probably some uber-1337 preteen h4x0r thought that DoSing slashdot would help him reach puberty...)
  23. Re:the problem with "open source" by LeBleu · · Score: 1 · on Taiwan to Start National Push For Free Software

    How about freedomware? It goes along with the long tradition of terms such as shareware, freeware, etc. It contains the word freedom right in it, so it doesn't have the gratis connotation of free software. It is a little easier to say than either of the phrases mentioned.

    According to the USPTO Trademark Electronic Search System, Toshiba once tried to trademark it for a global services network, but as of August 29, 2001 the trademark is abandoned. Maybe we should see if we can get the FSF or the OSI to snap up this trademark?

  24. A strategy for open source game development by Pierre+Phaneuf · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Making Money As An Open Source Game Developer?

    The basic strategy I would see for open source game development would be to keep the data proprietary, similar to the current situation with Doom and the first two Quakes (and I think some others).

    This is based on the idea that game engines resemble each others to some degree and that the differentiating factor will be the maps/levels/artwork/scripting and so on. You can thus get improvement done on the engine contributed back to you, and others can make their own original games with your engine, but nobody is playing your exact game for free.

    This strategy, of course, supposes that there is some significant amount of non-code data involved. If this is a puzzle game whose's only non-engine resources are backdrop images, this strategy is not effective.

    Remember to mark down contributions from the outside somehow, because you might want to relicense the engine under a non-open license (or maybe just change the license to another open source one), and you'll have to ask permission from the copyright owners of these patches (remember what is happening to Mozilla!). Having them assign copyright to you, having a "clean" codebase branch or keeping contact information are three possible approaches.

    Also, if you have some truly innovative technology in the engine that you think nobody else has, it might make sense to hold off the release a bit, so that you can build a market lead on that technology, then as competitors come up with equivalent technology, you can then release the source code.

    See Software Secrets: Do They Help or Hurt?.

  25. Re:Answer the question, folks! by Nailer · · Score: 2 · on What's the Business Case for Microsoft and Open Source?

    However, if it supplied its source code to anyone who bought the built product (even with side-conditions that the source could not be used to commercial advantage etc etc), that would still constitute open source software.

    No it would not. That clause violates section 6 of the Open Source Definition, therefore that would not constitute an Open Source license.

  26. Re:Why is Mozilla such crap? by Luminous+Coward · · Score: 1 · on Moving towards Mozilla 1.0
    I recall the leaked MS documents. ISTR they were called the October papers or something like that where Bill gates and his cohorts saw the open source communal development projects as a serious threat.
    You are referring to The Halloween Documents.
  27. Re:Answer the question, folks! by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1 · on What's the Business Case for Microsoft and Open Source?
    "Open Source" as defined by the Open Source Initiative, means that software is available in source form, and that you are free to read, modify, and distribute that source code. Simply including source isn't enough to be considered Open Source.


    Here is the full definition.

  28. Re:Apple by JordanH · · Score: 1 · on FreeBSD 4.6 Release Delayed
    • From what I remember, the license Apple used for Darwin only permits things to be contributed.. (eg. you can't fork it like you could Linux or *BSD, but you can give them code). If this is right, that is not open source/free software. You could look at it as Apple leeching free development without giving anything back.

      Hopefully I'm wrong on this....

    I think you're wrong, as I don't see the restrictions you are referring to in The Apple Public Source License, which covers Darwin. But, the language is legalese so maybe I'm missing it.

    I note that the Open Source Initiative includes The Apple Public Source License on their list of approved licenses.

  29. Re:Apple by JordanH · · Score: 1 · on FreeBSD 4.6 Release Delayed
    • From what I remember, the license Apple used for Darwin only permits things to be contributed.. (eg. you can't fork it like you could Linux or *BSD, but you can give them code). If this is right, that is not open source/free software. You could look at it as Apple leeching free development without giving anything back.

      Hopefully I'm wrong on this....

    I think you're wrong, as I don't see the restrictions you are referring to in The Apple Public Source License, which covers Darwin. But, the language is legalese so maybe I'm missing it.

    I note that the Open Source Initiative includes The Apple Public Source License on their list of approved licenses.

  30. Re:Apple by JordanH · · Score: 1 · on FreeBSD 4.6 Release Delayed
    • From what I remember, the license Apple used for Darwin only permits things to be contributed.. (eg. you can't fork it like you could Linux or *BSD, but you can give them code). If this is right, that is not open source/free software. You could look at it as Apple leeching free development without giving anything back.

      Hopefully I'm wrong on this....

    I think you're wrong, as I don't see the restrictions you are referring to in The Apple Public Source License, which covers Darwin. But, the language is legalese so maybe I'm missing it.

    I note that the Open Source Initiative includes The Apple Public Source License on their list of approved licenses.

  31. Fool me once.... by KernelHappy · · Score: 5, Interesting · on Debian And WineX

    This just illustrates why its important to understand the license governing a project before contributing to it. It is also the reason why the OSI keeps a list of approved licenses.

    If you didn't take time to understand the license before contributing to the project, you can't complain that you don't like the result.

  32. Re:Hypocrits by Dwonis · · Score: 2 · on MS Cites National Security to Justify Closed Source

    No, there aren't. Open Source is defined by the Open Source Definition (which is basically the Debian Free Software Guidelines, by the way).

  33. Re:What's in it for the client? by fmaxwell · · Score: 2 · on How to "Open Source" Custom, Contract Software?

    Who's going to give the competitor a copy?

    They will get it from sourceforge or wherever it is mirrored.

    Making software free, or even open source, doesn't mean you can't sell it, and doesn't mean you have to give it to anyone who asks.

    By your definition, Windows could be considered open source. Microsoft could just call it that, sell it, and then refuse to give the source to anyone.

    Since you clearly don't understand the term "open source", I suggest that you click here to get the definition.

    Excerpt:

    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.

  34. Open vs. Free by yerricde · · Score: 1 · on Virus Piggybacks Microsoft Mail Worm

    since when is open source about a single platform?

    Open Source has never been about a single platform. Free Software isn't either (GNU/*, *BSD, AtheOS, the former OpenBeOS, etc. are all free) but it does have a concept of a "free system" that contains no proprietary software.

  35. Re:Anyone in the middle of this issue?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Explaining the GPL to Non-Lawyers?

    Try OSI.

  36. But *my* open source license *is* small... by seek31337 · · Score: 2, Informative · on Explaining the GPL to Non-Lawyers?
    The problem is, you cannot put an entire political agenda in a 3"x1" window.

    From http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.htm l:
    <OWNER> = Regents of the University of California
    <ORGANIZATION> = University of California, Berkeley
    <YEAR> = 1998

    In the original BSD license, both occurrences of the phrase "COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS" in the disclaimer read "REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS".

    Here is the license template:

    Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
    All rights reserved.

    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

    * 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 <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
  37. Re:Not Open Source by frankie · · Score: 2 · on Apple Sues Sorenson Over QuickTime Codec

    isn't Open Source! It's proprietary-with-source

    Oh, that must be why ESR's Open Source Initiative says that APSL is an Approved License. Do you see the Microsoft license on that list?

    Get your own facts straight.

  38. RMS is also delusional by The+Evil+Beaver · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Slashback: Agenda, Reproduction, Aesthetics

    Reading the various documents by Stallman, I've come to the conclusion that he's every bit as delusional as Gates. To Gates' tinpot dictator, RMS makes a great Marxist revolutionary, but his tactics are flawed by petty things like the GPL.

    The GNU General Public License, to put it in one word, sucks. Much better licenses exist, ranging from the Mozilla Public License to the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License. Because of Stallman's inane "demand" (we'll call it) to use nothing but the GPL, or to assign all IP rights to his Free Software Foundation, he scares away many of those thinking that open source might be the solution they're looking for.

    It is perhaps best for the Open Source Revolution (if it still is a revolution) that both Microsoft (with Bill Gates) and the FSF (with Stallman) go away and never return.

  39. RMS is also delusional by The+Evil+Beaver · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Slashback: Agenda, Reproduction, Aesthetics

    Reading the various documents by Stallman, I've come to the conclusion that he's every bit as delusional as Gates. To Gates' tinpot dictator, RMS makes a great Marxist revolutionary, but his tactics are flawed by petty things like the GPL.

    The GNU General Public License, to put it in one word, sucks. Much better licenses exist, ranging from the Mozilla Public License to the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License. Because of Stallman's inane "demand" (we'll call it) to use nothing but the GPL, or to assign all IP rights to his Free Software Foundation, he scares away many of those thinking that open source might be the solution they're looking for.

    It is perhaps best for the Open Source Revolution (if it still is a revolution) that both Microsoft (with Bill Gates) and the FSF (with Stallman) go away and never return.

  40. RMS is also delusional by The+Evil+Beaver · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Slashback: Agenda, Reproduction, Aesthetics

    Reading the various documents by Stallman, I've come to the conclusion that he's every bit as delusional as Gates. To Gates' tinpot dictator, RMS makes a great Marxist revolutionary, but his tactics are flawed by petty things like the GPL.

    The GNU General Public License, to put it in one word, sucks. Much better licenses exist, ranging from the Mozilla Public License to the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License. Because of Stallman's inane "demand" (we'll call it) to use nothing but the GPL, or to assign all IP rights to his Free Software Foundation, he scares away many of those thinking that open source might be the solution they're looking for.

    It is perhaps best for the Open Source Revolution (if it still is a revolution) that both Microsoft (with Bill Gates) and the FSF (with Stallman) go away and never return.

  41. Hm, Linux doesn't just compete with "Unix" by jasonn · · Score: 1 · on Apple's Response to Microsoft: Unix Ads?

    Linux and FreeBSD have converted hundreds of thousands if not millions of desktops, systems, servers and people to using something other than Microsoft. I was running a straight up Microsoft shop/ISP. And, I was converted for both personal and corporate use. The magnitude of Linux machines running out there on personal PCs should tell you they are eating up Microsoft territory. That is why Microsoft Blasts the GPL every chance they get (I am not a fan of GPL either - prefer BSD License, another Open Source / Free Source license).

    The real story here is that Steve can't stop the whole "I am the best acid trippin' visionary ever" mantra long enough to target his marketplace. He is still competing with the wrong company. You really want to live off Sun's drop-offs? Come on! Sun does not have a lock on any decent share of the desktop market. Macs are NOT Servers! They are visual development and personal computing tools.

    :)

  42. Yes, yes, yes! by Nailer · · Score: 2 · on Nat Friedman talks of Ximian, Gnome, and Red Carpet

    It's not Ipen Source that's the threat, it's Free Software. FreeBSD is open source, but you can turn around, take that code and put it in a closed commericial product, and sell it without ever releasing your source.

    The BSD license is a Free Software license as it conforms to the Free Software Definition it's also Open Source as it conforms to the Open Source Definition . Why do so many people who talk about licensing as being important seems to never have read any of these documents? Half of Slashdot uses `commercial' as a way of saying `non-free' or `closed' or `proprietary'. News Flash: Red Hat, like all businesses, are aiming for money (and getting it). Commercial apps are very often both Open Source and Free Software.

    I'm blacking out again now, as I've been banned from moderation because I disagreed with a Slashdot editor.

  43. Re:No, no, no... by Xtifr · · Score: 1 · on Nat Friedman talks of Ximian, Gnome, and Red Carpet

    Good God, how did this get modded "Insightful"?

    FreeBSD is both open source and free software. Go look at the definition of open source, and compare it to (for example) Debian's definition of free software.

    The GPL is a copyleft (and not the only one), and copyleft-style licenses are what MS objects to. But copylefts like the GPL and non-copyleft free licenses like BSD/MIT/X all fall into the categories known variously as "Free Software", and "Open Source". Anyone who's been paying any attention at all should know this.

    The term "Open Source" was invented to try to avoid the ambiguities and confusion generated by the term "Free Software". NOT to mean something different. There may be some minor quibbles between the OSI and the FSF about some licenses (only one that I know of), but in general, they're talking about the same thing. In recent days, I've seen ridiculous claims on /. that java is open source (check the OS definition referenced above, and you'll see that it clearly is not), and other such confusion. Clearly, the new term has NOT reduced the confusion factor. If anything, it's made it worse. Which is what I predicted would happen years ago.

    Oh well, if people weren't easily confused, they'd probably be much more boring. :)

  44. Re:Pay!? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2 · on Nat Friedman talks of Ximian, Gnome, and Red Carpet

    Open Source != Free (beer) [...] Are you new to Open Source?

    No, but apparently you are. Please review the Open Source Definition. You'll note that clause numero uno is free redistribution. In other words, Open Source == Free Beer.

  45. Interoperability by Wanker · · Score: 2 · on Gates Testifies in Antitrust Suit
    I find it hilarious that he keeps talking about interoperability as the enabling feature that Microsoft brought to the computing world.

    I'm still not sure if he's just so far removed from the reality of what is going on that he really believes what he's saying, or if he's just impressively two-faced. I suspect the former, just because I don't look for a conspiracy when simple ignorance will do.

    26. Given these benefits, we expected that the market would attach great value to any product that enabled such broad interoperability. As I explain more fully below in Section II.B, Microsoft committed itself to providing compatibility among a wide range of products, as we believed the market would demand. There were three key and closely-interrelated elements to our strategy, a strategy that is unchanged to this day.
    and:

    Literally tens of thousands of hardware and software products interoperate very well with Windows today.
    and:

    Interoperability across disparate computing products does not happen by accident. Interoperability is a two-way street, requiring a lot of hard work between companies that want to build interoperable products. As discussed below, Microsoft devotes enormous efforts to promoting interoperability between a wide variety of products and Windows. These efforts include our development and broad licensing of the Windows platform (described above) and our disclosure of vast amounts of technical information about Windows--information that we provide to our direct competitors, such as Sun.
    Ok, I would like to see some of this disclosure. Why did the Samba team need to reverse-engineer the Windows file sharing protocol if such information is so widely available?

    What information did Microsoft need to provide to Sun? More likely, they got information from Sun about the various UNIX protocols so they could embrace and extend them.

    If Microsoft was really that open with their specifications, wouldn't writing a Win32 emulator be easier? Instead, it seems to actually be simpler to write a working complete PC emulator and rely on Windows' ability to cope well with different hardware to let it run well than it it to duplicate the ever-changing and never-documented Win32 APIs.

    I have no doubt that interoperability played a huge role in development at Microsoft. They needed to talk with other software packages and operating systems in order to gain market share.

    At the same time, they could leverage their position as the operating system provider to prevent others from doing the same thing to them.

    From the earliest days of DOS, they kept their cards close. The use of those (intentionally?) undocumented DOS calls in Excel gave Microsoft a big advantage over Lotus-1-2-3, who had to go in and either re-implement an existing (but unknown) API that Microsoft had in the OS, or reverse engineer the process to find the undocumented calls that the Excel folks had advance notice of. By the same token, Microsof could and did (deliberately?) change the "undocumented" APIs that Lotus relied on while simultaneously changing the new version of Excel to stop using them.

    In short, they seem to have a firm handle on the fact that the path to dominance is to make sure your product can interface with others, but don't let the others interface with you.

  46. Re:Bait and switch? by LordNimon · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Submitting Corporate IP to Open Source Projects?
    Frankly, I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we could get away from the word "free" altogether.

    That's why it's really called "Open Source". Some time back, a bunch of people got together and realized that the term "free" was misleading. Anyone who tries to preach the GPL to a layman and uses the word "free" instead of "open" is making a mistake. In fact, it's quite easy to talk about the "freeness" of GPL code without using the word free. For instance, you can say that GPL code can be obtained at no charge and there are no licensing costs with using it. The problem is that the word "free" has several meanings, and therefore it's not a good word to use for people who are sound-byte oriented, like PHBs.

  47. "Free Software". by castlan · · Score: 2 · on The New Nomad Jukebox, And Handheld Oggs

    It seems fairly evident that the phrase "open standards" has nothing to do with money, but with "trade secrets" and proprietary formats that a company can legally prevent others from using.

    While the words free software can mean software that can be had for no money, making it "free of cost", the phrase "free software" usually refers to Free Software. Free Software can be a free download, or it can cost money to buy it. The point of Free Software, is that once you have it, you can do just about anything you want with it, even share it with your friends. A Copyleft like the General Public License (GPL) is a kind of Copyright, which ensures that everybody you give the software to has the same freedoms that were given to you. Even if all of Ogg were totally under the GPL, they could still try to sell the software for money, just like you can, one you have a copy.

    There is no reason why you can't make money off of Free Software or open standards. For more information on Free software, check out http://www.gnu.org/philosophy

  48. Re:Not just GPL by No+One · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Tech Specs Prohibit GPL Implementations

    Addendum: For a license to violate the second half of the Microsoft license, it must violate clase 9 of the OSD. I'm not aware of any license that does, and if one does it's by definition not Open Source and I doubt the FSF considers it Free either.

  49. Re:You're missing the point by subgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Microsoft Tech Specs Prohibit GPL Implementations

    that is right on.

    apart from the entirely different argument about whether *BSD or linux is better, the biggest threat to Microsoft on servers is linux. If something is a big enough competitor, MS does not care what license it uses. MS only cares that every machine running a competing OS is not running Windows (or exclusively Windows).

    In Microsoft's leaked emails they don't talk about letting BSD slide because of the license. they don't mention the GPL as the reason that linux must be outsold. They only mention that they want to work especially hard to win those accounts.

    people mentioning Apple's OSX as a threat miss the point. though Darwin is open source, OSX is not. If it were, i'd be running it on my PC architecture. Microsoft lets Apple slide because they have been confined to a niche market (though personally, i wouldn't be surprised if OSX reverses that trend.) as it stands, OSX only runs on proprietary Apple hardware.

    The point is that MS focuses its efforts on its largest immediate threats. Not threats to licensing or IP, but threats to market share. As soon as BSD gets a big enough install base, MS will go after BSD.

    Also there's the idea that GPL does not allow the MS tried and true formula, embrace, extend, extinguish. MS likes BSD because it can do anything it likes with the code. They'll toss code out there if it allows people to develop for their own proprietary platform. It is not contributed because MS thinks that it would like to help make BSD a better OS.

    Anyone who thinks that Microsoft's final goal is something other than total market domination in every area related to technology is fooling themselves.

  50. Re:Not just GPL by zsmooth · · Score: 3, Informative · on Microsoft Tech Specs Prohibit GPL Implementations

    Wrong, you can charge for redistribution of BSD licensed software. Link