Slashdot Mirror

It should, however, be noted that the NPL is not approved by the Open Source Initiative, assuming that you give a shit about such things.

It should, however, be noted that the NPL is not approved by the Open Source Initiative, assuming that you give a shit about such things.

Embrace and Extend, my friend...Embrace and Extend...

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.htm l

. . .but what about that disco-maniac Steve Ballmer. MS software isn't inherently evil, but all indications are that Operations and Marketing at MS are pretty damned evil. Halloween Documents, anyone ???

Please try to stop spreading the misconception that DivX 4 (opendivx or any other variant) is open source. It violates several definitions of the open sourced definition (i.e. the one about "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor")

Thank you.

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.

Quite obviously, a license which disallows some kinds of modifications or derived works isn't open source.

Of course, any product that fails to satisfy that last criterion is neither free software by the FSF definition nor open-source software by the OSI definition. However, there are plenty of packages that claim to be "free" or "open" and in fact are not. (Consider Sun's SCSL, used for Java, or SSH's read-only licenses, used for ssh.)

In short, the question I ask myself when evaluating a piece of software is "Will this seemingly free software fuck me over in the future?" If I used Debian, I'd have an easy answer to that question, without having to check each package myself.*

*In fact, I don't use Debian, because I prefer RPM and the BSD ports as package formats, but that's another story.

There's little question that On2 has some explaining to do, reconciling EULAs and $395 fees with open source. Also, it's unclear whether their modifications to the MPL will meet the OSD.

I've got the karma to burn, so let me just don my "Captain Obvious" hat here...

America Online? Open standards? You're joking, right?

I seriously doubt that I need to explain myself here.

And don't even think about pointing me in this direction.

The Artistic License is one I like. I'm always suspicious of an open source license that either a) has a polemical preamble that tries to coerce your behavior, b) reads like the team of lawyers who wrote the license are making a lot more money than the developers, or c) presumes that the only good programmer is one who either programs as a hobby, is an academic, works for a big company that can afford to subsidize the programmer's time, or works for an end-user company that can afford to build complex systems strictly for internal use -- in other words, that there's no moral way to be a software vendor.

Yeah, I know there's plenty of room for argument all around, but my sympathies are with small software vendors who need some way to get enough revenue from 100-5000 licenses to pay salaries. The Artistic License strikes me as compact and commonsensical, and a good model for many situations. And of course it has the coolest name. :-)

The Artistic License is one I like. I'm always suspicious of an open source license that either a) has a polemical preamble that tries to coerce your behavior, b) reads like the team of lawyers who wrote the license are making a lot more money than the developers, or c) presumes that the only good programmer is one who either programs as a hobby, is an academic, works for a big company that can afford to subsidize the programmer's time, or works for an end-user company that can afford to build complex systems strictly for internal use -- in other words, that there's no moral way to be a software vendor.

Yeah, I know there's plenty of room for argument all around, but my sympathies are with small software vendors who need some way to get enough revenue from 100-5000 licenses to pay salaries. The Artistic License strikes me as compact and commonsensical, and a good model for many situations. And of course it has the coolest name. :-)

The Artistic License is one I like. I'm always suspicious of an open source license that either a) has a polemical preamble that tries to coerce your behavior, b) reads like the team of lawyers who wrote the license are making a lot more money than the developers, or c) presumes that the only good programmer is one who either programs as a hobby, is an academic, works for a big company that can afford to subsidize the programmer's time, or works for an end-user company that can afford to build complex systems strictly for internal use -- in other words, that there's no moral way to be a software vendor.

Yeah, I know there's plenty of room for argument all around, but my sympathies are with small software vendors who need some way to get enough revenue from 100-5000 licenses to pay salaries. The Artistic License strikes me as compact and commonsensical, and a good model for many situations. And of course it has the coolest name. :-)

The Artistic License is one I like. I'm always suspicious of an open source license that either a) has a polemical preamble that tries to coerce your behavior, b) reads like the team of lawyers who wrote the license are making a lot more money than the developers, or c) presumes that the only good programmer is one who either programs as a hobby, is an academic, works for a big company that can afford to subsidize the programmer's time, or works for an end-user company that can afford to build complex systems strictly for internal use -- in other words, that there's no moral way to be a software vendor.

Yeah, I know there's plenty of room for argument all around, but my sympathies are with small software vendors who need some way to get enough revenue from 100-5000 licenses to pay salaries. The Artistic License strikes me as compact and commonsensical, and a good model for many situations. And of course it has the coolest name. :-)

It's not even Open Source as defined by Open Source Initiative

• Open Source License Quick Reference Chart
  
• Open Source Licenses
  

In this case, if you find it acceptable that people make changes to your code and distribute the result without sharing them, use the (new) , it is small, simple and give you the minimal legal protection against getting sued.

If not, I suggest the MPL/GPL/LGPL tripple license used by Mozilla for new code (actually the GPL part is unnecesary, but it is safest to use the text pointed to by the link, since it has been proffread by lawyers). The MPL part will make it useful for embedded and most other purposes, the (L)GPL for use in (L)GPL projects, and it still means changes to your files will be made public.

Do any of your examples use an Open Source license?
-russ

The Net can, in fact, be used to make money and suppress freedom.

I'm not sure quite what Jon means here. Sure some companies make money by restricting information, but that's been true for a long time. Most school districts in the U.S. have some sort of filtering software in place and there are plenty of firewall companies out there, some are even Open Source.

But suppressing freedom? I think that even heavily filtered Internet access is better than nothing. How are Saudis less free by having 90% of the Internet available to them than by having no Internet?

Finally, if I'm reading it correctly, even the Open Source Definition wouldn't prevent companies from doing business with Saudi Arabia, so I'm not sure how critical we can be of companies doing business as usual.

This essay is probably the best explanation of the philosophic difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. This difference is real and significant; RMS is not just making this up or being obstinate. Criterion 9 of the Open Source Definition is the main point of contention.

My reading of the debate is that at this point it is healthy and indicates the continued evolution and dynamism of OS/Free software. The danger is that the current popularity of the Open Source model would sideline advocates of the Free Software model and lead to a destructive schism. All voices need to be heard and understood.

(it calls itself Basically GPL, which, BTW, hasn't been approved by the OSI)

Huh? Is this saying that GPL is not approved by the OSI?

Then why is it at the top of this list?

Alienation of the leaders ... yeah. I can see that happen, and have. Now, how about when the 'leaders' alienate the projects? Eric S. Raymond recently started slinging flames at the Pennmush folks, citing their lack of a GPL license as reason to threaten the developers with OSS community sanctions (which were never voted on by the OSI board, btw), because they were using the words 'open' and 'source' in their license. A definition did follow. It read "meaning that the source is freely available and you can modify it however you like". But this wasn't good enough. I don't know if the OSI folks realize what ESR did when he sent that Nastygram(tm), but I'm more than willing to point out a portion of the damage done.

Many developers decided not to support the OSI once they heard about this. I'm one of them. It's not worth our time or effort to stand behind a project that, while espousing lofty goals, stoops to such politically motiviated activities as attempting to hijack a common phrase (anyone else remember the Pilsbury vs whoever over 'bake-off' thing? I do).

Ego? Maybe. I have no idea what sort of bug got into his pants. But this was really, really WRONG. Perhaps if ESR had sent an email asking for some sort of clarification of the license, instead of threatening sanctions against the Pennmush project right from the word go, things might have gone better. But, as it stands, the OSI now has an image very similar to that of any other corporate entity that starts any correspondence with threats and bullying tactics. I'm sure this is the sort of thing Micro$oft and other corporations love to see, and expected and hoped for, you know. Open Source eating its own young, biting its own tail off, that sort of thing.

I feel I must pause to applaud. [golf clap] Way to go Mr.Raymond. Just let me know when I should start calling you Mr.Gates, OK?

By the way, I think an open apology might be in order, from the entire OSI board, since ESR wrote his threats with the big Open Source Intimidation label all over them. Take responsibility, even if you won't accept blame.

In case you're wondering, yes, this annoys me slightly. Cope.

RMS claiming that he is the father of open source is like Linus Torvalds claiming he is the father of Linux.

... or like saying James Madison is the father of the U.S. Constitution! Linus Torvalds IS the father of Linux, and RMS IS the father of free software.

Oh yeah, before you flame this, when has RMS ever said he is the father of open-source? He is the father of the free software movement NOT the open source initiative.

Next time, try to remember the difference!

I went to visit the article and followed the links to the Halloween documents page provided there. I never actually read this set of pages before so I decided that I'd just go ahead and educate myself rather than relying on the concensus to set my opinion.

As I read the Halloween information at the site indicated above, I decided to re-read the "Linux Myths" page at Microsoft.com. I had read that one before in its entirety but I wanted to refresh my memory once more. As it turns out, the "Linux Myths" page is either missing or has been moved. So I searched using their search facility.

Entering "Linux Myths" into the search text box and "OK" I waited and waited for a response and eventually, the page came up with a header but a blank body portion of the page. "An error?" I thought to myself. I tried again with the same results. Then, I searched only "Linux" with the same results. Finally, I wanted to test the search to see if it was broken. I searched "Office 97" and was immediately given a long list of document references from the search. The search is not broken, it appears to be blocked!

Is reference information regarding Linux blocked at Microsoft's site intentionally? Maybe someone could test that.

The Open Source Definition isn't subjective. One of the most important reasons for creating the "opensource" term was to have a word that couldn't mean something different.

Here is the actual link to currently approved OSI licenses: http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

Coincidentally, this was announced three years to the day after the leaking of Microsoft's plans to "de-commoditize" the open protocols that make up the internet. Fate must be winking at Bill.

Yes, but it's just not the same without M$ releasing their documents Open Source

MS's Halloween Docs ;-D

The open source definition [opensource.org] clearly states that discrimination against "fields of endevor" is forbidden. Discriminatio against people trying to make money is discrimination.

This license forbids Cheapbytes or its ilk from selling copies of Lindows. That's not open source.

Check the Open Source Definition. (And yes, it does define Open Source: the definition came first, then the marketing buzzword.)

Who is more evil?

You forgot to list Disney :)

I think RIAA and MPAA should listed as one item. Their lawyers have been commoditized.

The real problem is that /. poll uses a radio button. I wanna vote for both Microsoft and RIAA/MPAA.

I don't think Disney has rated a capital E yet. It's just evil in training.

IMHO DOJ isn't actually Evil, they do what congress tells them too, if perhaps a bit overzealously at times :)

IMHO Congress isn't actually Evil either. When they do the WrongThing I think it's usually out of misplaced GoodIntentions. Sometimes unimaginably badly placed GoodIntentions. (Anybody have a ClueStick they can spare? There's a couple of people who need to be hit over the head a few times.)

Microsoft's general response to open source (and anything that threatens its monopoly) is to use FUD tactics. Read about it in the Halloween docs. I suppose Microsoft does have a point about businesses not actually making money of off gpl software. But this is a pretty bleak point of view, because gpl software could be successful if built on a good business model.

Perhaps you should look at the Halloween documents. They're an outside critical look at Free/OSS and comparison of different development models.

These are supposedly reasons to switch to the MSN service, implying you can't get it if you don't:

• Instant messaging from MSN Messenger Service: bullshit, everyone on the Internet can use it
• Catch up on the latest news from MSNBC: are they really trying to say MSNBC is only available to MSN users? Besides, maybe it would be better if it was.
• Send instant messages: didn't they already mention that one?
• ... and so on and so on ...

Java is NOT open-source. Don't even begin to think that it is. Sun has been trying to pass their SCSL off as a GPL... but it is FAR from it. Truly open-source application are those which satisfy by the definition of open-source by either the FSF or OSI.

I point you to these limitations within Sun's Community Source License (SCSL) which you are purporting to be open-source:

1) Modified source code cannot be distributed without the express written permission of Sun.

2) Binary programs built using modified Java 2 SDK source code may not be distributed, internally or externally, without meeting the compatibility and other requirements described in the License Agreement

There is NOTHING open about these two line items. They give you the source, but open-source is more than just looking at it.

I encourage you to investigate what open-source really means by visiting the two sites I mention above.

Best regards.

First, ``free beer'' and ``free speech'' are used to disambiguate the concept of Free Software. The GNU website explains this here.

``Open Source'' was coined to solve this ambiguity problem in a different way; so, ``free beer''/``free speech'' is really orthogonal to Open Source.

Second, ``free beer'' is actually an ``aspect'' of neither Free Software nor Open Source. Much Free/Open Source Software is ``free beer'', but that has nothing to do with Free Software or Open Source. Specifically, the FSF explicitly endorses commercial Free Software, such as Redhat Linux, and the OSI provides specific ideas for how to make money off of Open Source Software.

To answer your question, a copyright license complying with such a patent license would not qualify as either a Free Software license or an Open Source license. The Free Software Definition states ``Being free to do these things [including charging money for software] means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.''

My guess as to why this restriction is imposed is that it's to prevent a scenario such as the following: You go to the local computer store, buy a copy of the latest version of (say) Redhat Linux, and take it home and install it on several of your friends' computers. They later re-imburse you for their portion of the purchase price. Lo! You have now sold them copies of Redhat Linux, and are liable to pay royalties to the patent holders (if any).

The Open Source Definition likewise states, ``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.'' So, such a license would not qualify as Open Source either.

First, ``free beer'' and ``free speech'' are used to disambiguate the concept of Free Software. The GNU website explains this here.

``Open Source'' was coined to solve this ambiguity problem in a different way; so, ``free beer''/``free speech'' is really orthogonal to Open Source.

Second, ``free beer'' is actually an ``aspect'' of neither Free Software nor Open Source. Much Free/Open Source Software is ``free beer'', but that has nothing to do with Free Software or Open Source. Specifically, the FSF explicitly endorses commercial Free Software, such as Redhat Linux, and the OSI provides specific ideas for how to make money off of Open Source Software.

To answer your question, a copyright license complying with such a patent license would not qualify as either a Free Software license or an Open Source license. The Free Software Definition states ``Being free to do these things [including charging money for software] means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.''

My guess as to why this restriction is imposed is that it's to prevent a scenario such as the following: You go to the local computer store, buy a copy of the latest version of (say) Redhat Linux, and take it home and install it on several of your friends' computers. They later re-imburse you for their portion of the purchase price. Lo! You have now sold them copies of Redhat Linux, and are liable to pay royalties to the patent holders (if any).

The Open Source Definition likewise states, ``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.'' So, such a license would not qualify as Open Source either.

It is readily apparent that there is a faction within the W3C that is trying to cash in on corporate patents. I see no other motivation for the W3C to even consider adopting such a policy. I'm sure they've had much pressure for years to make this kind of move. From companies such as Microsoft, Sun, and others. These corporate sloths have been trying for years to get the W3C to adopt their patented products under these kinds of guidelines. It looks like now that this could become a reality.

I wouldn't be surprised if the folks over at the FSF have something to do with this as well. This is the kind of thing that the FSF always harps on. Staunch FSF supporters have always felt that the FSF software model should extend to standardization. Which I think is bunk.

If this policy is adopted, we will definitely see a competing standards body to take its place.

We'll end up with the FSF version of the W3C, and the OSS version of the W3C.

IMHO, this is a really bad thing. This move by the W3C would cause an even greater fragment in the open source community.

That's not something we need in the open-source community. We've got enough challenges as it is.

I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with my conclusions, but I believe them to be sound. If you want to be successful on Linux (or any other free OS), you need to be libre/free.

That means making the source code available under a GPL-like license.

However, you can still protect your market at the same time. Just make it a requirement that anything compiled with the libre version of VectorC, or a derivative, also be licensed under the GPL or any of the similar licenses recognized by the OSI.

Then dual-license the compiler so that anyone who pays for the commercial license is free to do whatever they want with the resultant binaries, no licensing restrictions.

That way you can contribute to the community by providing a libre compiler, benefit from the community who will likely contribute bug-fixes and enhancements, and still make money from the people who would be willing to pay in the first place.

If BSD licensed code were used in a closed source project, the copyright acknowledgement would still have to exist somewhere (documentation, etc.) because of this clause:

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.

A typical BSD license can be found here. It seems fairly self-explanitory and clear.

No, not really. At the end of my post is the BSD license template from opensource.org. Basically, you can use the code in any program you like, under any license you like, just so long as you and anyone who distributes the code includes a simple copyright statement. Some MS tools have been known to include this (especially from Windows NT), and I'm sure some other /.ers can point you to strange places that BSD copyright statements come up.

Since the license is so short, might as well include it right here for people too lazy to click:

Here is the license template:

Copyright (c) ,
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 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 REGENTS 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.

Also, from http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html#9:

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.

Then, they go on to say:

Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.

A single work? This sort of thing always chaps my hide. Let's say that your program will operate with any libc other than GNU's. Arguably this means you should have written things differently, but let's go on.

Now, it's my understanding that any package which will not function without a GPL'd package must be GPL itself. If this is true, then your program now must be GPL'd, even if you don't include Gnu libc in your distribution.

Am I correct? And if I am, how is this not contamination?

Apology accepted. So what criteria do you require of a license which makes our approval meaningless to you? Is there something missing from the OSD?
-russ

It does seem to be a bit much. OSI's list of approved licences is now at 26. In a few years, it may take longer to figure out which licence to use than to actually write the code itself!

I think that a Dynamic Open Source License (DOSI) could solve a lot of problems, but if not done right it could also turn into an unwieldy mess (imagine filtering through ten or twenty pages whorth of checkboxes).

But then again, I am an idiot, and really have .no idea what I'm talking about 99.999% of the time,

While the answers as to why individuals write free software will satisfy Rick Boucher's personal curiousity, in order to help him support the free software movement a different question also needs to be answered, especially when the above is being asked by a decision maker that is not yet commited to free software: Why is it in the interest of the community to move from the propriety software framework to the free one.

Answers to the second question were already given by a good number of capable people. Many Ideological answers reside on the Free Software Foundation philosophy pages (to name an obvious source), but decision makers will be more interested in the practical ones.

Practical answers for the community question are also abundant, such as the ones on the Opensource website (to name another obvious source); I also remember a nice economical analysis on free software posted recently on slashdot (could someone please provide the URL?).

A 2-liner for Mr. Boucher: When sufficiently many people are involved in free software, the productivity of the entire community increases substantially. Therefore it is in the economical interest of the community to provide financial incentives, such as job positions, to free software developers.

Recently, as more demonstrations of productivity increase are witnessed, major companies like IBM have started financing free software developement in order to share in the benefits.

• Establish a professional reputation for quality work
  
• Establish a social reputation as a nice person
  
• Make the world a better place
  

A congressman will be familiar with lawyers, and probably has a legal background himself, so comparing open source to legal pro bono work will put him on familiar ground and give you a shared context. Eg, ask "how would you feel if a big law firm called Pro Bono work 'unamerican'?")

Of course there are also all the commercial reasons why companies produce open source code. Its worth emphasising that many open source coders are actually employed to do it, so its not just a geek hobby. See Opensource.org for all the commercial reasons for releasing open source.

Paul.

As far as violating clause 6 of the OSS definition, that's really a matter of perception

Um.. no... as I read the OSD, the SPL meets neither clause 1 nor clause 6. And I don't see where it comes into being a matter of perception.

Not open source. Therefore closed source.

What does this mean?

If you are trying to say that the SPL is an Open Source (or Free Software) license, then you're wrong, it is not.

It fails to meet clause 6 of the The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), or if you prefer, Clause 6 of the Open Source Definition.

Don't expect to see any SPL covered code in Debian.

I'd much rather that Sistina stayed alive and was Open Source instead of Free Software instead of them sticking to their ideological guns and ending up teetering on the brink of death

Wrong argument. This isn't about open source versus free software. This is about proprietary software versus open source/free software. Check out the open source definition and GNU's definition of free software.

Free software and open source software are basically the same thing. Software that meets one definition almost always meets the other. On the other hand, demanding licensing fees not only causes software to fail GNU's definition of free software, it also causes software to fail the open source definition! (See points 6 and 7, and also to a lesser extent, 3 and 5.)

Point 6 says, " 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."

Just because the source code is available doesn't mean a product is "open source." That's why so many people are so upset about Microsoft's "shared source" program. In fact, the open source initiative was originally conceived to protect "open source" as a trademark, to prevent companies from licensing software that made source available, but not under truly open source terms.

Yes, from some points of view, what Sistina is doing is fair. But it's not open source. The point of free software is not to eliminate business or profit. (At least not for most of us.) You might check out selling free software. The differences between free software and open source software have nothing to do with whether the copyright owner makes a profit or not.

This revolution began on the shoulders of the

insane, people like Richard Stallman, who hold so

firmly to their points that everyone who doesn't

get the point says "oh, i get it, he's insane."

Then a whole bunch of money got thrown at us, and

everyone tried to make us insane people the

saviors of the world. Now that is collapsing, and

it's back on the shoulders of the insane folks to carry

the free software/open source revolution.

I say, welcome back. I prefer the company of

geeks who work for no money anyways.