Slashdot Mirror

I've been a pine user for nearly a decade (or howver long it's been around), and have intermittently tried going to mutt. As a user who gets a very high volume of email, pine has a much more advanced search/zoom/sort feature than mutt (currently, as of August/2001) has. I've customized mutt to the n'th degree with every single pine key binding I use, and still I miss the ability to quickly search, zoom, and sort my messages. Mutt just can't seem to do that. I've posted on the list, heard a ton of people talking about folder hooks which launch a perl script to parse the maildir and throw some nasty regexes at it. No thanks.

Also, why does the folder browser let me walk my entire file system? And additionally, from that folder view, allow me to edit and delete files, even shared and static libraries? This is bad. Pine doesn't let you do this, and neither should mutt. Yes, I could go in there and hack the source to forbid this, but once again, pine wins.

Last I knew, you couldn't do imap and pop mailboxen simultaneously in the same folder or within the same session with mutt. Pine does this transparently. Also, is there a way to do nntp within mutt without having to install imapd and a local news cache? Again, pine wins.

There are probably a dozen more things pine does in a superior fashion that mutt does not at this point. Until it matures to match pine and work and function in the way that I use pine for, mutt (for me), is still inferior.

Oh, and your comment about pine being open source, is wrong. Pine certainly is open source. It is free, you can give it away, and it follows the OSD, the only restriction is that you distribute the original pine source + any patches you make, not redistribute the sources pre-modified. Please go familiarize yourself with the Open Source Definition before posting this incorrect information in the future.

Until mutt can match pine for me, pine is always going to find a warm place on my desktop. Also, you really should look into MANA if you want a free, GPL'd pine clone replacement. Couple this with nano and you already have a capable replacement environment that would surpass mutt in capabilities.

Let's also not forget that pine is enhanced with features that the students at Washington State University find useful. The development of those new features is funded by those students, out of pocket. Only the things they need get put in. A perfect example is maildir. Since wash.edu doesn't use maildir, why does pine need to support it?

Remember, part of the open source definition is that software must be for anyone, whether it's a pro-freedom organisation or a bunch of international terrorists.

If you were to start saying that "It's free, but only to people we like", you're becoming worse than that certain company. AFAIK, they'll sell to pretty much anyone...

The OSI should not continue its attempts to "force fit" the GPL, and the FSF, into the category of "open source." They don't fit, and it is time to quit trying to pretend that they can.

"Open source" is pro-business. But Richard Stallman's mission is to destroy all commercial software businesses. It has been ever since he developed a grudge against them, and began raving that they were "evil," many years ago. (The story of how this happened is well documented in Steven Levy's book Hackers.)

The GPL also violates at least two and probably three points of the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against a group of people (commercial programmers) and against a field of endeavor (the production of commercial software). It is also viral. Attempting to deny that it violates the definition, and labeling the GPL as an "open source" license, hurts the Open Source Initiative's credibility. It appears to be violating its own principles so as to hitch a ride on the Linux bandwagon (Linux is, after all, GPLed.) To be true to its written principles, the OSI must quit attempting to call the GPL an "open source" license.

Richard Stallman, Bradley Kuhn, and the FSF itself say that the GPL is not an "open source" license. What better people to make this decision than the author of the license and the head of the group that attempts to foist it upon others? By attempting to include a license whose authors explicitly do not want it included, the OSI again weakens its ethical position.

The OSI has, at this juncture, the opportunity to be ethical and to oppose discriminatory licenses such as the GPL. Only by doing so will it stay true to its claimed principles. A split will not weaken that movement; there is still a great deal of truly free software, such as the BSDs, which is unencumbered by the GPL and is truly business-friendly. Only by attempting to include the GPL -- against the author's wishes and the OSI's own principles -- can it lose.

--Brett Glass

OSI has a nice list of OpenSource licenses: www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html
But I suppose it won't be a help for PHBs if the comparison gets more complicated.

Our department quite often uses open-source projects as a basic part for in-house tools. Co-workers sometimes consider to call an external program but say "It's GPL, we would have to add a commandline-option, we don't want to make things complicated if we want to sell it."

I wish they would at least try to contact the original author and hear his opinion. I suppose most programmers would be willing to cooperate and support (for example) a generic interface to custom extensions.

Wrong!!
This is why SmartTags are a BadThing (tm). Slashdot is pointing to a site of their choice to explain the word. In the SmartTags world it would point to a site of Microsofts choice.
The words Open Source Software could be explained by this in a SlashTag and this way by SmartTags...

" All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away."

Excuse me. Where in the GPL licence or the BSD licence does it say you can't sell for money the software?

Oh, that's right -- nowhere does it say that.

All it means is that some of the code is out under a licence that makes it friendly for people to use it in other free software projects. It could've been a way to get the hard work of the Be people out of the sinking ship, like Netscape did with Mozilla. Oh well. Our loss because some people there were perhaps uneducated about sharing the software.

First. MS Hailstorm (and Passport) don't have anything to do with Mono or the C# programming environment as far as I can tell. Mono is basicly a free software version of C#, not a free software version of everything the MS marketing department (you mean there's other MS departments?) has decided and will decide to throw under the .NET moniker. The relation between MS Passport and C# is coincidental.

Second. I don't understand what makes C# so superior to Java that we need it. The only reason MS is using it instead of Java is because they do not have a license to use Java. Microsoft, and Sun Settle. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be ported, I mean, name a language that isn't supported by free software.

Third. Nicholas Petreley is right that MS Passport is a problem, and the real threat to computer users and an open Internet. What is needed is a Internet Standard way of managing authentification, one that is standard and independant of any one company or computer platform. Where is the auth: RFC?

Fourth. Mono is Free Software :-) (Software Libre) not Open Source
MS can Embrace and Extend Open Source software, it can't Embrace and Extend Free Software.

After seeing too many of htese sotries, i would suggest that any independant programmer form a LLC (limited liability corporation) to be the legal representation of your work. This way, if you are sued, the LLC will be named in the suite and any dmages they manage to collect will be the comanyies, not your personal assets.

Yup. And then you have no profits, so they can just take your product. Thanks for the all the hardwork Fellas!

And if your product was released under an open source license, all you need to do is fork the code and carry on, so so what?

Defending the BSD license --

quote: ... You would only be a "dupe" if you did not understand the terms of the BSD license --
which is unlikely, since it is a very short, simple and clear license. (The GPL, on the other hand,
goes on for pages and contains much legalese.) The BSD license, and the MIT X license, say that
anyone can use the code in any way he or she wants -- so long as they release the author from
liability for bugs. Simple, clear, and to the point. There's not much room to be "duped" here!

GPL: The Great Wall
Avoiding GPL "infection"
Un-"GNUing" software

quote: In fact, if you understand the history of the GPL (which is documented in Steven Levy's book
Hackers, you know that one of Richard Stallman's goals in creating the GPL was exactly this:
to prevent the reuse of the products of government-sponsored research in commercial products.

Richard Stallman, who did government-sponsored research at the MIT AI Lab, was traumatized when his co-workers left the Lab to convert its research into "real" products that people could use. As Levy wrote:

This was RMS's opportunity for revenge.... Stallman
had no illusions that his act would significantly improve
the world at large. He had come to accept that the domain
around the AI Lab had been permanently polluted. He was
out to cause as much damage to the culprit as he could.

A recent story in Forbes corroborates Levy's account. It says:

[Stallman] retaliated [against the computer scientists
who left the MIT AI Lab to form Symbolics] by sabotaging his
former colleagues' sophisticated commercial programs for powerful
computers, singlehandedly hacking up his own versions
and giving them away. "They accused me of costing them millions
of dollars," he says. "I hope it's true."

IBM could choose to allow free use of the patent in any open source work - as long as it stays open source. Any non-open source product would have to get a paid licenses.

OSI Open Source definition reads:
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. [italics are mine].
This is obviously an attempt to make something which can never be approved as an Open Source license. MS is learning fast, don't you think? ;-)

Microsoft does not support eth concept of Open Source and that it is Open Source, not Free Software, that Microsoft is actively attempting to discredit.

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

This is the "then they fight you" stage I think.

Personally I've known this was coming for a while, pretty much ever since the original Halloween document. Microsoft is fighting back, not fairly (in some senses) but in a manner that should be expected. They are not attacking linux as not superior software, but attacking the principles behind Linux. The few details about how they got it wrong, well, no ones perfect are they?

Microsoft is doing what they do best, building Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the minds of those who listen to them, in this case those targetted would be businesses I think. Anyone who thinks they can use linux to build a business on top of, or use linux in anyway, must be "infected" with the doubt that maybe, just maybe, by using linux in some way (or any open source software) they will not be able to make any money without giving all their IP out for free.

Now we all know this is bullshit. Opensource != GPL, Linux Kernel != GPL, GPL != give everything for free, we (for varying values of "we") know this already. My company uses linux to build embedded firewall devices. The ability to do something in a stable OS, without paying $xxx for WinCE licensing gives us huge advantages in that our core OS is free. We then build on that. Our IP is not so much in the OS and the programs that we wrote to run on it (which are not all GPL/LGPL I don't think, or are under a different license), but in the propriatory tool we use to configure this system.

So I say let MS spread their FUD, and mix up the way that linux and oss/gpl are presented to the world, I'm waiting for the next stage after "then they fight you" which is of course "and then you win".

Well, I'm pretty sure that RMS would never accept your proposed "fix" to the GPL, but you of course are still perfectly free to release your own code under any licence you wish. You could even give it a clever name and start promoting it as an alternative to the GPL (although I doubt you could call it Open Source, as it seems to violate several terms of the Open Source Definition). In fact, I wish you the best of luck.

I don't think that the clauses as you wrote them would have the effect you're looking for, though. If anyone can modify a piece of software, and by doing so, become the new primary distributor, then a trivial change (say to a version number, or a comment) would allow anyone downloading the software to redistribute it. This could even be automated so that everyone could freely share the software, just as if it had been GPLed.

It doesn't even have to be automated. If you are charging for your software under this scheme, and someone wants it to be free, it only takes one person to set up a mirror site with some trivial modification, and you have had all of your revenue cut off, through perfectly legal means.

You seem to believe that hundreds of programmers are making a terrible mistake licensing their software under the GPL, since it hinders their ability to become stinking rich directly from the sale of that software. I prefer to think that all of these developers have chosen to place their software under the GPL because they understand it, and they truly wish for their software to be as free as the GPL makes it.

That's enough ranting for now... :)

When listening to the verbal sparring between open source advocates and Microsoft, it's interesting to notice what's not being talked about. Look at any side of the debate. Do you see any mention of BSD?

Quite a few licenses qualify as open source, according to those who define the term. In attacks on open source, such as the recent commentary by Microsoft's Craig Mundie, the headline and opening comments target open source in a general way. But one doesn't have to read far to see that the only open source license under attack is the GNU General Public License (GPL).

To add to this focus on the GNU GPL, there has been almost no response to Microsoft from within the BSD community.

• 1993: Windows NT (3.5) will have 80% of the desktop market within 2 years of release
• 1994: Internet will grow to 6 million users by 2005
• 1995: Cobol is used in over 65% of new application development
• 1996: Windows NT 4.0 will have 80% of the internet server market by 1998.
• 1996: Cobol is the world's 'premier language for application deployment' and 'there should be no worries about the viability of COBOL for any project on any platform'
• 1987: 75 percent of the Internet services for large enterprises will move to usage-based pricing by 2001
• 1998: '[Y2K] failures in less developed countries, smaller companies, and companies with high global dependencies will cause a negative impact to the world economy'
• 1999: Linux is 'Hype du Jour'. 'The lack of standards in the Linux community, coupled with a lack of key productivity applications and with Unix complexity, will continue to make Linux a poor choice for the mainstream business productivity user'. It soon appears that Microsoft sponsored the study. Gartner Group denies, but also quickly pulls the page from their site. Here's a biased synopsis

Both Linux, and GNU bash are licensed under the GPL as "free software." Stallman has stated that free software stems from "Freedom Zero", namely "the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any way you like. "

To my knowledge, use restrictions would violate both the GPL and Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition.

What's so unamerican about a company having the freedom to make and sell products as they see fit? If anything, all the rules and restrictions placed on Microsoft (and our efforts to put more restrictions on them, and in fact to break up the entire company) could hardly be called "American."

Does Microsoft have the freedom to compete with other companies with the strength of monopoly power to subsidize its failures? That seems pretty anti-capitalistic to me. In my capitalistic utopia, the competitors compete solely based on the merits of their products and services.

Why is that bad? Katz, you're knee-jerking again. They coming up with new projects and products. That's *wonderful*, not terrible. It adds to the "marketplace of ideas." If we don't like them, we don't have to buy them.

And if we don't like electricity, we don't have to use it. For the vast majority of people (especially businesses) in this country, there simply is no alternative. That's the nature of monopoly, that's the way Microsoft wants it, and that's why their expansion is a bad thing.

If Linux (or anything else) is going to make it in the marketplace, the people behind it will have to stop whining about not having the market equivalent of affirmative action, and instead will have to develop business models based on something other than "If we make it, they will come."

Linux's success has little to do with the technical merits of Linux. As long as 1. There are no "killer apps" for Linux, and 2. Microsoft controls the standards (which they have written about doing ), then Linux cannot compete no matter how good it is. The OS market is wildly different from almost any other market, and traditional economic principals simply don't apply. What other kinds of non-software, non-media products can you envision that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?

Uhhh....what about the fact that almost everyone who goes online also intersects with Cisco routers? You're not using any logic, Katz.

Apples and oranges. Cisco complies with open standards. Microsoft, on the other hand, *is* the standard. Anyone can go make a router and try and sell it. Competing in the OS market is about a bazillion times more difficult. Go ask Be, Inc. how their experiences competing with Microsoft in the desktop OS market are going (and BeOS is superior to *any* desktop OS Microsoft has produced, IMHO).

This Microsoft garbage is getting really old. Aren't there any important tech topics left in the world?

What's getting old are your invalid, pro-Microsoft arguments. And considering that Microsoft's power is growing, not shrinking, I think it's still an important topic.

Because these two projects don't use the GPL to release their work. The Apache foundation uses the ASL which discourages forking in ways that wouldn't quite jive with adding in GPL code and OpenBSD uses the BSDLicense which allows code to be incorporated into non-free programs in ways that don't work with the GPL (though the FSF terms it as a compatable license these days). Basically, the differences aren't all that big of a deal unless you like picking fights with RMS. The little obscure differences between these different licenses are avaliable here if you actually had any interest in learning about these issues.

________________________

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

isn't the CYGWIN.DLL released under LGPL

No. Cygwin1.dll is under GPL with exception "You may link this library to any OSI certified open source software." The -mno-cygwin switch uses msvcrt.dll instead of cygwin1.dll; so does MinGW GCC.

Not sure about that. Looking at the Open Souce Definition you find just at the beginning:

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.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw way many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.

You can _ask_ for money, however, hoping that enough distributors and final users consider honorable and/or convenient feed you with some cash so that you can continue work on your program.
The various 'foundations' behind large software suites/programs get money in this way, I think. OTOH Eazel just tried it at the end of its history and failed (possibly because they did not have an established product yet?).

Well, I think it's important to also consider the other Open Source Licenses that there are out there.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on any of the varieties listed, but perhaps there is one that allows the author to collect on profitable usage and distribution of his/her work.

I know that if I wrote some significant piece of Linux software I would very likely wish to release the source in the public domain, however I would like to also share in the profit if someone else is making money from my work.

However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. The goal of GNU-Licensed software is not to produce profit, but to produce further development of a free *NIX-like OS and applications for it. The reason you can sell GNU software (provided it includes source code) without breaching the license is simply that the GNU-License developers don't mind if you make a few bucks as long as you're supporting their couse, namely distribution GNU source code.



An example of why open source is good (even if it's not free!): I happen to like Outlook Express quite a bit. Being a Microsoft product, it is most certainly closed source. However it is also freely distributed, despite Microsoft's typical draconian EUA's and legal stuff like that.

Essentially it's freeware. Nontheless, I like it enough that I would pay for it... provided I could fix those GD-*#%! bugs in the IMAP code and perhaps add some features (and subtract others). As a developer, I am sure I would be perfectly capable of affecting those desired changes... and I would prefer to not have to wait for microsoft to do it for me... What I'm saying is that opening the source code adds something very valuable to the product. If it wasn't already available for free, I'd gladly pay for a copy of the source code if it allowed me to modify the program for my own personal use. Even better would be if I could even sell my enhanced version and simply pay microsoft a small royalty. Open source can certainly be profitable, but profit is not the intention of the GPL. That is left to other Open Source Licenses.



I intended to put in my $.02 but think I just overpaid!

The even have their own OSI approved license. NOKOS, the Nokia Open Source License.

The even have their own OSI approved license. NOKOS, the Nokia Open Source License.

I personally think that this is great for Open Source in general. Any support from major companies is a Good Thing (TM). The more that Linux is out in the public eye, the more likely that people will start seeing it as a viable alternative to other more proprietary/closed operating systems.

I personally think that this is great for Open Source in general. Any support from major companies is a Good Thing (TM). The more that Linux is out in the public eye, the more likely that people will start seeing it as a viable alternative to other more proprietary/closed operating systems.

The other approach is to treat the passed law as a fact. Sports commentary have established that a fact is common/public (though the database schema can be protected) and decomposing the document as a series of legal facts and rearranging hte order (sorted by relevance) might be another way around it.

When the spirit of the law gets twisted by the letter, then it is time to start worrying about the system. A tyrancy of compelled behaviour (whether criminal case, civil code or ecnomic conduct) is no less for being promoted by a group than a dictator. Given that special interests are much more motivated to pass/support/write bad legistlation, it seems that greater transparency is needed, not less.

Quid custodit ipsos custodes?

LL

Internet Explorer, a web browser designed to prevent users from looking at third party products, primarily Netscape

Actually, I believe that IE allows you to look at NS all you want - in fact, it lets you look at just about everything out there on the web, since *that* is what it was designed for.

As to your other comments, Outlook is installed regardless of whether you want it installed or not, and implements Microsoft specific email protocols on top of the standards, encouraging use of those protocols. You could check your email using any other email client, you use Outlook for the same reason as you browse the net with IE - it's there, it's already loaded, it can be uninstalled completely, and so installing another client will be inefficient.

I'm not sure I understand your comments about the MSN Messenger - the fact is its there to encourage use of MSN Instant Messaging and discourage use of commodity protocol based messaging or commercial alternatives like AOL. Whether MSN IM happens, today, to be "better" than the alternatives is open to question - I'm not aware of a Linux IM client, for instance, so using that client makes it harder for me to communicate with Linux users.

The specific intent of Microsoft's 'add-ons' is to avoid choice

Well, no, actually, their addons don't limit anyone's choice. Unless you feel that if you've already got MSN Messenger then it'd be an unholy act for you to install AIM as well.

That's a great argument. Hey, I can replace one app which is a few meg, so obviously having to take up an extra 200 megs with other applications that would compete with functionality I'm forced to preinstall is clearly easy too! And having Netscape + IE loaded into memory at once isn't going to force me to buy more memory, or ditch Netscape. Geez.

In short, there's no comparison. Microsoft is forcing you to install software you don't necessarily want, in order to cripple the competition.

Again, they're not forcing anything. They are including it for a) their market share (duh) and b) because it actually IS convenient to have all sorts of goodies already installed on the machine without having to hunt around and download'em once you get the machine.

Anyways, yeah, I know, I got trolled,

For information on Microsoft's views about commodity protocols, try Here.

For information on Microsoft's strategy to beat Netscape, including why IE is a compulsory part of Windows, and Microsoft's own comments suggesting that IE should be installed in such a way that "Using Netscape should be a jarring experience", I refer you to the massive press coverage of the Microsoft Anti-trust Trial. All the above stuff is either documented in the trial notes, and stuff Microsoft themselves say is true but is standard business practice, or can easily be derived from what they've said should be standard business practice.
--

Open Source Process

Commercial software development processes are hallmarked by organization around economic goals. However, since money is often not the (primary) motivation behind Open Source Software, understanding the nature of the threat posed requires a deep understanding of the process and motivation of Open Source development teams.

In other words, to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.

{ This is a very important insight, one I wish Microsoft had missed. The real battle isn't NT vs. Linux, or Microsoft vs. Red Hat/Caldera/S.u.S.E. -- it's closed-source development versus open-source. The cathedral versus the bazaar.

This applies in reverse as well, which is why bashing Microsoft qua Microsoft misses the point -- they're a symptom, not the disease itself. I wish more Linux hackers understood this.

On a practical level, this insight means we can expect Microsoft's propaganda machine to be directed against the process and culture of open source, rather than specific competitors. Brace for it... }

Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).

The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:

• "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake: free software should simply mean software which is free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF (BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself. I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.

• "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source" == good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers (go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.

Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)

Let the pork jokes begin...

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the license Dan puts on his programs and whether this license is Open Source.

Section three of the open source definition requires that derived works are allowed:

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.

Contrast this to this excerpt of Dan's license:

You may distribute a precompiled package if installing your package produces exactly the same files, in exactly the same locations, that a user would obtain by installing one of my packages listed above;

I hope this clears up any confusion people may have with whether Dan's license is open source.

- Sam (Posting this at one since this is a rather heated discussion)

People always ask me why I write open source. They want to know why I will give my source code away for free when others can just steal my hard work and claim it as their own. These people, and apparently Mr. Love, are not familiar with the terms of the GPL.

Because of the GPL my open source code is protected. I can give, sell, or rent my code out to someone, but if they change the code and want to distribute it, they have to play by the exact same rules. They can give, sell or rent their changed code, but they have to provide the source and the same licensing mechanism along with it.

IMHO, the GPL is Open Source's STRONGEST point. It ensures that open source programmers won't be taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies who would simply steal their hard work and claim it as their own (which they could under the BSD license). Remember the Halloween Documents? The ones where Microsoft claimed that the biggest threat they faced from Linux (and by logical extension Open Source) was that by sharing the code, open source could harness the peer review and programming power of millions of programmers all over the world. Wouldn't it just play into Microsoft's hand perfectly if they could absorb all this open source power without having to respect the freedom guaranteed by the GPL?

I don't know what Mr. Love's angle is, but I do know that he is gravely mistaken about what the GPL is and what it represents to the Open Source community. It is one of our cornerstones, it is our Bill of Rights, it guarantees software's freedom and provides a safe environment for intellectual exchange, peer review and software maturation.

*DISCLAIMER* I work for Jabber.com. Thought I'd take a few moments to respond to a few things.

1. jabber.com hired pretty much all of the original jabber.org developers.

At one time a lot of different people worked for jabber.com but right now pretty much all of the original jabber.org developers DON'T work for jabber.com. And most all of them work on the open source code anyway.

2. The jabber.org guys changed away from GPL to jabber.com's own JOSL ("jabber open source license").

It's more we like adding onto, not changing away from GPL. Like many other Open Source Licenses JOSL allows dual-licensing. Best of both worlds.

3. It is unclear (to me) if you contribute to jabber.org how/if your work will be pulled into jabber.com.

You're work's under your own copyright. Like other open source code, you agree to submit your changes for inclusion in a derivative open source work but that's all. That work will have to be open source too. We can't use your stuff without your permission in any other way. No one can.

4. jabber.com is the "commercial" version of jabber.org. You pay them for it and they give various kinds of support. They've supposedly done alot of testing on it.

Yep. Following some of the best open source business examples.

5. jabber.com is a completely different codebase than jabber.org. (for example .com uses pthreads and .org uses pth different thread libs)). The .com people are trying to add clustering and scalability that .org's code base doesn't have. I'm not sure if they're giving that back to .org

Not completely, no. And a pthreads version of the .com code has already been released to open source.

6. I'm skeptical as to how much .org will continue to thrive (as opposed to before .com) now that its main developers are working for .com on a different code base.

There's no two ways about this: jabber.org will thrive. We're doing a number of things to insure this, most importantly creating the Jabber Foundation, modeled along the lines of the Apache Foundation. We don't have all the answers on balancing commercial and open source relationships. We're open to all kinds of suggestions on how to do this. But know this: we are bound and determined to commit the resources to insure the Project grows.

7. As of a month ago, the jabber.com server didn't support the msn/yahoo/aim connections because that code is contained in "transports" modules designed to work with jabber.org's vastly different pth-based code base. And my understanding was it would be a "couple of quarter" before they're in. When you try out jabber.com's open server and see that it does appear to connect to msn/yahoo/aim, the way they are doing it is they are running a jabber.org server side-by-side with the jabber.com server and doing a jabber-jabber intermediate transport (ie the .com server is relying on the .org server to do the msn/yahoo/aim connections). I'm saying this is good or bad, but it is definitely a factor if you're considering buying a jabber.com server and support to allow your customers to connect to aim/yahoo/msn.

We're all working on the best way to do this. I think you'll see some progress sooner than later.

8. jabber.com won't sell support for aim/msn/yahoo because they can't "indemnify" it (or whatever) - they can't supposedly guarantee the connectivity. While it is true they can't guarantee the connectivity (until aim/yahoo/msn license it) it seems to me they can still sell it while explicitly stating they can't guarantee it. (I believe Odigo does - odigo.com is another IM solution that sells server, client, custom IM stuff).

See above.

Hey, if you have any questions, I'm bauer at jabber.com.

I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.

Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).

The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:

• "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake: free software should simply mean software which is free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF (BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself.
• "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source" == good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers (go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.

Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)

BSD licensed code has this problem, which is one of the reasons why the GPL exists.
It is interesting how sucessful GPL code has been in the software industry. There are many commercial linux distributions, which has helped the Linux community. Other companies that have traditionally been involved with closed-source, propietary software are now recognizing free software as a viable alternative.

SGI is involved with their XFS project, among other things. IBM is involved with many linux related projects. And is being an incredible influence in the community. BSD has not received anywhere near as much commercial attention, which I find interesting, considering that the BSD/MIT license is considerably more corporation friendly, by giving rights to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software".

The BSD license allows companies like Apple to use BSD code with little (if any) accountability to the open source community, which is why the GPL is more widely accepted by open source developers. But the question really becomes that of licensing. Apple has their APSL license, and IBM has their IPL license. A major difference between these two licenses is that the IPL is OSI approved. Apple's APSL is not.

Apple is using the phrase "open source" as a means of marketing. It's not right and I plan to ignore them until they clean up their act. Apple has used BSD code, and has not contributed to the BSD community. But the BSD community doesn't require this. So who is to blame? It's simple. If you do not want companies to exploit your work, don't let them. Use GPL licensing. That's what it's for.

BSD licensed code has this problem, which is one of the reasons why the GPL exists.
It is interesting how sucessful GPL code has been in the software industry. There are many commercial linux distributions, which has helped the Linux community. Other companies that have traditionally been involved with closed-source, propietary software are now recognizing free software as a viable alternative.

SGI is involved with their XFS project, among other things. IBM is involved with many linux related projects. And is being an incredible influence in the community. BSD has not received anywhere near as much commercial attention, which I find interesting, considering that the BSD/MIT license is considerably more corporation friendly, by giving rights to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software".

The BSD license allows companies like Apple to use BSD code with little (if any) accountability to the open source community, which is why the GPL is more widely accepted by open source developers. But the question really becomes that of licensing. Apple has their APSL license, and IBM has their IPL license. A major difference between these two licenses is that the IPL is OSI approved. Apple's APSL is not.

Apple is using the phrase "open source" as a means of marketing. It's not right and I plan to ignore them until they clean up their act. Apple has used BSD code, and has not contributed to the BSD community. But the BSD community doesn't require this. So who is to blame? It's simple. If you do not want companies to exploit your work, don't let them. Use GPL licensing. That's what it's for.

Access to the source code is mandatory for the public to be able to release improvements to it, so that the whole community benefits.

That is, IF you are the licensor. IF you are not, then you are Free to use the code as you please (dependant on license - please read the BSDL) - this includes NOT deriving the benefits of keeping the code open. The BSD freedom can stop with you, the end-user; its requirements are not stringent upon you, but rather the author/licensor. The point of the GPL is that it cannot stop with you if you're producing something for public consumption - you, the licensee, have a lot of requirements to follow. Freedom 3 (the one you quoted) is not applied to the end-user, but rather the author: it is not so much a restriction (ref. the GPL) as a freedom.

The GPL is a restrictive license - it propagates open source code. The BSDL is a relatively unrestrictive license - it propagates software.

I thought the GPL implies that you shouldn't discriminate who gets to use your code, and I thought that the Open Source Definition explicitly says that one "[5] must not discriminate against any person or group of persons [and [6]] must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

I'm looking & looking, but I just do see anything anywhere about it being okay to only pay attention the parts you find convenient or expedient. Maybe you can point me in the right direction here?

In the meantime, this is for me, a non-spammer, regular working shmoe, a very educational & useful book. I'm not gonna support a boycott of it just because it doesn't jibe with your situational ethics...

That sounds great, talking about 'freedom,' but if you actually read the GPL, in effect, you could sell only one copy of your software, and everyone else could just copy it. I know that's not the intent of the GPL, but that's the net effect.

RedHat Linux and all Linux distributions are free as in speech...read this page or this page to find out what the difference is... the developers of Linux (Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, et al.) decided out of the goodness of their hearts to donate their software to the public. Companies like RedHat make money by selling things like technical support and services. Selling CDs is just to get into the door, really.

Ok, I'll bite. (Yes, I know I'm a sucker)

When I bought my new computer, I had
Windows, Internet Explorer, and Office pre-installed (for free)

Not quite. You paid for it, you just don't know you paid for it. Microsoft, whose biggest market is OEMs, like the company that made your computer, sold the software to your machine's manufacturer. The manufacturer's cost of the software, plus a small markup, is then built in to the cost of your machine. Had Windows and Office not been pre-installed on the machine, your machine would have been cheaper. By how much, I can't tell you, because Microsoft has a different deal with each OEM based on sales volume.

RedHat does not develop Linux. For the most part, Linux is developed by a worldwide team of volunteer programmers scattered across the continents and the 'Net. RedHat *does* provide some funding for open source projects and actually employs a few of those developers (including Alan Cox), but so does Corel (they have been funding wine development), Caldera (I forget what they fund), and other companies that don't even make a Linux distro like IBM, Compaq, and others. Nobody is "stealing" RedHat's work because all the work they and other companies do on Linux and other open source software is licensed under an open source license like the GPL. See the Open Source Initiative's website for more information on the open source licenses like the GPL. There is a difference between free as in speech vs. free as in beer. Linux is free as in speech.

http://www.opensource.org/press_releases/osi-clari fies-APSL.html

Aha, I stand corrected. Thanks.

However I don't see it on their license page; I guess they're busy.

OSI Press Release

Why does everyone simply believe Apple when they say Open Source?!?

The Apple Public Source License is not approved by the Open Source Initiative nor the Free Software Foundation. In fact RMS gives reasons why it is not acceptable, even their new 'version 1.2' APSL release.

They really need to stop erroneously using the words 'Open Source'.

OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

Taken from the Halloween Documents. Scroll down to De-commoditize protocols & applications.

Maybe this isn't hijacking an open standard as much as subverting one through software crippling... Either way, it's hard to ignore the fact that a software company that relies on proprietary formats is looking for a way to do away with an open format. We should be fighting this on principle. I suppose that's preaching to the converted, though...

This is a common Microsoft tactic that is rarely successful.

Open Source engineers with enough time and motivation could easily backward engineer the bastardized MS USB protocol. A kernal hack could implement a driver to translate standardized USB communications into MS USB communications and vice versa. Having accomplished this task there would be no impediment to using mice, keyboards or even USB printers with the XBox.

Of course someone would still need to write an xbox driver for XFREE86 and Linux successful takes over the box.

Communism is where you must share what you have produced, with a gun to your head. If you refuse, you are thrown into jail or killed.

It's amazing how ignorant Americans are about politics. The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics never claimed to be a Communist state; it claimed to be a state which aspired to, and sought to work towards, Communism. The particular flavour of Communism which it sought to work towards was Marxist, but Marx didn't invent Communism as an idea; it had wide currency in his period (see e.g the Paris Commune, and comtemporary papers by Anarchist theorist, Peter Kropotkin).

In Marx's time Communism was already over a thousand years old, and had been a feature of many of the heretical groups of the middle ages, and of extreme factions during the English Civil War

So, in summary, 'Communism' does not mean the Soviet system; 'Communism' does not mean Marxism-Leninism; and 'Communism' does not mean having a gun held to your head.

Is Open Source a communist idea? Yes, I'm perfectly sure it is. But it is most certainly not a Soviet idea or a Marxist idea.