Slashdot Mirror

But how open is open? - they don't seem to say what definition they are using!

Or do they? I looked in the site dics and found that OSD's definition of open source is any software under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative, from free GPL2, BSD2, X11, and Clarified Artistic to flawed QPL, BSD1, and Python 1.6 to too-vague-to-be-free Original Artistic. (Sources: free | open)

But how open is open? - they don't seem to say what definition they are using!

Or do they? I looked in the site dics and found that OSD's definition of open source is any software under a license approved by the Open Source Initiative, from free GPL2, BSD2, X11, and Clarified Artistic to flawed QPL, BSD1, and Python 1.6 to too-vague-to-be-free Original Artistic. (Sources: free | open)

Linux isn't always the answer. But if the question is 'how do we avoid software audits being imposed on us by our suppliers', or 'how do we avoid unfair and damaging software license provisions', then Open Source is the answer; and at this moment Linux is the most widely used Open Source OS.

Why, those codes have decided that they like the possibility for other to sell there work and that they DON'T need to get the money in that case. If they don't like that they shouldn't use GPL or any other Open Sourced licence (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) The first criteria in the definition os open source is that this is possible. If you don't like it don't get into open source, or free software (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html).

Now, that's actually an interesting marketing move. If they manage to keep the bloatware to a minimum, and if it keeps its promises (which is a big 'if', granted), XP should make Joe Newbie very happy. Fine with me as well, if I no longer have to spend days debugging my momma's computer.

The Net integration and MS Passport stuff might be a problem for non-Windows users -- MS's goal is to decommoditize protocols and apps, as they themselves state. But then -- those might not be protocols and apps we need. Hopefully. The whole integration and dumbing down thing could even turn the average tweaking user (gamer, or simply computer knowledgeable user) away from XP.

And that could be open source OSes such as Linux's chance. Linux, FreeBSD and their kin just don't compete in the same league. There is a big market for dumbed-down OSes, definitely. There is also a distinct market for tweakable and fun-to-use (which is different from easy-to-use!) OSes. And the distinction between those two specific markets is becoming much clearer with MS's last move; by moving away from the compromise between tweakability and easiness of use that Win9x was, MS might open an empty spot for, well, something else to fill.

In an hypothetical future, beginners and the vast market of people who don't want to be bothered with technical stuff will use XP. Excellent. More knowledgeable users will prefer one of the 'easy' Linux distros (Mandrake and the like). Hardcore users will always go on doing hardcore things, Linux-from-scratch and stuff, no matter how hypothetical the future. :)

Well -- what a nice utopia it would be. Cute, stupid OS for people who want just that, some free Unix-like for the average desktop user, with, hopefully, minimum open-source-provided interoperability between the two worlds. Too nice to be true, and not likely to happen that easily. But well, we can dream, can't we? :)

Actually, none of OS X is "Open Source" as defined by the Open Source Initiative. As you'll notice, the list of licenses is missing the Apple Public Source License. Why? Because it does not comply with the standards that Open Source Software requires. Open Source isn't merely distributing the source to a program, and the APSL doesn't allow each of the points that are required. Darwin != OpenSource.

Actually, none of OS X is "Open Source" as defined by the Open Source Initiative. As you'll notice, the list of licenses is missing the Apple Public Source License. Why? Because it does not comply with the standards that Open Source Software requires. Open Source isn't merely distributing the source to a program, and the APSL doesn't allow each of the points that are required. Darwin != OpenSource.

Actually, none of OS X is "Open Source" as defined by the Open Source Initiative. As you'll notice, the list of licenses is missing the Apple Public Source License. Why? Because it does not comply with the standards that Open Source Software requires. Open Source isn't merely distributing the source to a program, and the APSL doesn't allow each of the points that are required. Darwin != OpenSource.

• Apache - ~%62 global market share
• DNS and Bind - er ~100% market share
• Perl, Python, PHP, Zope, Postgresql and MySQL
• sendmail - probably touches every piece of externally routed email on the planet
• Linux - fastest growing OS in 2000 according to IDC
• The Internet itself

All of these apps and architectures can be classified as OSS. And to claim Mozilla as a failure is disingenuous at best since it was crippled for the first year or so of its existence by its dependence on non-free libraries.

Damn. You know you're responding to a troll when you get to the end of a reply and you've just quoted all the facts and figures at the Open Source website for the fiftieth time.

Even if we like ASP or not, even if we prefer PHP, JSP or ColdFusion, I think the port isn't bad by itself. It is more software for UNIX systems, so that means *NIX operating systems are taken very seriously. Why should we "fight" against this? New software is a way of developing these systems.

However, I think that an ASP port for UNIX should be completely free, opensource and so on. As everybody knows, that allows programs to be of high quality and really tested (see this for examples of not-deeply-tested applications). Furthermore, it is possible that commercial and free versions of a system exist, each one with its own capabilities (for example, mySQL and other SQL based systems).

As a conclusion, I agree on the port, but there should be a free version (and soon if possible :) ).

The Halloween 2 memo specifically lists Software Patents as a way to battle Open Source Software and Linux threats. I bet they won't be afraid to use this patent when they feel cornered by OSS or Linux.
Martijn Pieters, Software Engineer
Digital Creations, Creators of Zope

1. He pioneered the idea of free software, under the moniker of "free software," and very likely feels upset that those ideals have been usurped by this new movement with a new name (this motivation to have his contributions recognized in name can also be found in his urgings that the OS is called "GNU/Linux," not just "Linux");
2. He fears that, by removing the word "free" from the name, we're also removing the concept of freedom from our thoughts about the subject. Freedom of software is important to him and he wants the users of free software to be reminded that they are excercising their freedom by using it. "Open Source," in his mind, dilutes that association in users' minds.

The difference is a difference of name; a kernel by any other name would smell just as sweet.

To an extent, Microsoft (the first major closed-source provider) did inspire the so-called "Open Source" movement. But the movement for free software explicitly for freedom's sake has been around since the early 1980s when Microsoft's influence on the industry was already great.

The FSF owns tradmark and controls usage of the term "open source"

No. You are incorrect. The FSF does neither of those things.

See the OSI for more. Even they abandoned attempts to trademark the term "open source".

I was talking about this Open Source movement which was started in 1998, not open source as in having the source available which has existed for as long as we have had computers. The main concentration of the "Open Source" movement apears to be to sell the Free Software movement to corporate executives.

That's crap. There is quite a big, and largely complimentary, piece on him in the book. Besides, history will take care of itself. In a hundred years time, Linux will be gone. Will students be writing papers on 'the FSF and the end of intellectual property rights'. Maybe.

I didn't read the book, I'm only commenting on the title and review, which seems to focus on the "Open Source" movement.

Why must the Slashdot crowd constantly think of ways to get around protections put in place to allow content providers to exercise their rights to control their works?

If it's broadcast, and I can recieve it on my hardware, I'll do whatever the fuck I want with it - even if that means disabling consumer-hostile technologies.

I don't care about their synthetic, legislated 'rights', if they broadcast it, I have the natural right to recieve the signal and do with it what I like, whether that means capturing it, decoding it, or just watching it.

I did not ask for their signals to be broadcast to me, so they have no right to tell me what I can do
with that signal, provided I'm not distributing/profiting from the works modulated into it.
(Which would be violating pre-DMCA copyright laws)
It's almost like the Cue Cat crap; if you send me something I didn't request, nor pay for, what right do you have to get pissy about what I do with it?

Besides, time-shifting has been a right VCR owners have had for over a decade...
Why should new hardware suddenly nullify this right?

Oh, and to be honest, I don't care about the GPL.
I usually work under the BSD license, which basically just mandates I be credited for my work.

Mod me down, I've got gobs of karma.
--K

He is probally refering to the Microsoft Halloween Documents and the launch of Windows 95.

If you actually took your blinkers off you might realize that - I don't just crap about Linux like you seem to about Windows. I haven't got an irrational fear/jealousy about Linux.

Microsoft sure does. See the Halloween Documents. This is Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. There's always been an anti-Microsoft sentiment around here as it is a pro-Linux/BSD/*nix web site. If you don't like it, don't visit. Go create a website for Microsoft Weenies. Call it backslash-NAME-tilde.com. I don't expect Rush Limbaugh to start telling the Democratic side of the story simply because he's the most popular talk show host in the country! Why should /. start supporting Microsoft?

Redhat goes down, MS goes down . . . don't say that no-one needs to visit redhat.com . . . ever tried installing Redhat? . . .I spent 3 hours downloading things from http://updates.redhat.com.

You keep talking about Redhat. Do you understand (don't take this personal) that Redhat != Linux? Just an aside. You're coming across as the typical idiot who buys Redhat, installs it once, dinks around with it for 5-10 minutes, realizes that its not just like Windows, and quits learning. Then this idiot feels they know everything there is to know about Linux and starts spreading misinformation like "it took me 3 hours to update Linux" when you don't mention that it takes longer for Windows.

This stuff about Windows needing service packs often is bull. Linux has far more service packs, because Microsft (sic--emphasis added) updates things all at once whereas with Linux you have to update individually.

Are you too stupid to see the significance of this? While Windows users are getting their security bungholes ripped open while they wait for their precious Service Pack, Linux users can download the latest version of software and be safe from the nasty script kiddies.

The intent of the GPL license is pretty clear: if you "use" the code, you should open source your own code.

I agree that the GPL is pretty clear, but I read it slightly differently: if you use the code, you should GPL your own code.

According to opensource.org any of GPL, LGPL, BSD license, MIT license, etc. qualify your software as open source, but the GPL requires that derivative works "be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License [the GPL]."

...Andrew

Whether this is applicable in this case, I won't comment.

--

Whether this is applicable in this case, I won't comment.

--

1. BSD licenses allow you to do with the code whatever you want. Read the license. That's what it says.
   
2. If you start doing ANYTHING with GPL licenses like you just described, it will NOT be appreciated. Fear for your life if you do so. Run.
   

1. You make a game and call it your own, while you use code from other people in it. If this code is GPLed, it is given to you with a statement like "do with it what you want, but please don't be so unthankful to keep your changes to yourself". And here you are trying to construct a way around that promise --> that's silly!
   
2. It doesn't seem anything like reasonable to me to use the code of an open source project in a closes source one unless it is really how the creators of the OSS meant it to be. People develop this stuff with idealistic reasons in mind, not opportunistic reasons.
   

You know, it's really tough sometimes to figure out who to cheer for (yes, that's a parody, but with not a little basis in reality).

On a more serious note, isn't the phrase "bake-off" sufficiently descriptive that it may contradict guidelines on what is and isn't trademarkable? As the OSI found with their failed attempt to secure the "Open Source" trademark?

What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

The movie is fiction. If you want the reality of Open Source, then take a look at C.H.I.M.P. and see Open Source in action!

This article slipped by my "Exclude Jon Katz" filter. :-(
---------

M$ has ways: Remember Java?

In case people have forgotten, M$ has also successfully used the embrace-engulf-devour strategy very successfully against "threats" like Java.

In fact, that's the way the Halloween Document II recommends Linux be marginalized, and I think .NET is a credible attempt at following that advice.

The approach used against Netscape is not so relevant, but the one used against Java may work nicely.

OpenDivx is not Open Source, at least as opensource.org defines the term. For example, you are forbidden by the DivX copyright terms to use the software in a way that does not implement MPEG-4, and you are forbidden from using it where "Encoded Content is a primary or substantial product."

I'm not saying that releasing OpenDivX with a promotional copyright is itself harmful or immoral, but their misapplication of the "Open Source" term to a scheme that shares few of the public benefits that attract developers is misleading.

OpenDivx is not Open Source, at least as opensource.org defines the term. For example, you are forbidden by the DivX copyright terms to use the software in a way that does not implement MPEG-4, and you are forbidden from using it where "Encoded Content is a primary or substantial product."

I'm not saying that releasing OpenDivX with a promotional copyright is itself harmful or immoral, but their misapplication of the "Open Source" term to a scheme that shares few of the public benefits that attract developers is misleading.

1. Even though the source code for the Darwin kernel and POSIX layer, the rest of Mac OS (Quartz/Carbon/Cocoa) is still very proprietary.
2. Even Darwin may not qualify under the Open Source definition.

What does "open-source competition" have to do with it? Keep in mind msql is *not* OSS. Just because you can get the source does not mean that it is open

I wonder if there was some sort of payoff by M$ here... If the company had gone "out of its way" to ensure that their service ONLY ran on Microjunk, then there's gotta be a reason. No sane ISP would cut off paying users without a good incentive... One has to wonder, especially in light of some of the things mentioned in 'Halloween Documents' (check out http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ (hyperlink here) if you've never read them...)

I wish someone would post more of Microsoft's internal memos. I find them very interesting and revealing of Microsoft's culture.

But I agree with you about ZDNet.

You should only choose another license if you specifically intend to allow anyone to make closed-source, commercial use of your code.

That's why it's pointed out in an earlier comment that Microsoft wouldn't base an offerring on Linux, but on BSD - as Apple is doing, with Mac OS X.

The Free Software Foundation recommends against the general use of the LGPL - formerly called the GNU Library Public License but now called the lesser public license.

Generally, you'd only want to use the LGPL if there is already an existing high-quality library that is available in closed-source form and you want yours to be adopted by people who want to keep the source to their applications closed. This was done, for example, with glibc, to make a replacement for the proprietary libc popular.

But if you're writing a totally new library, or if you feel that your library is a significant improvement on an existing closed-source library, using the GPL rather than the LGPL will draw new free software into the world, and although it won't prevent people from selling your work, it will prevent them from holding the source closed.

Licenses that would be inappropriate for competing with Microsoft would be the BSD License or the MIT License, the Apache License or the Mozilla Public License.

That's why, despite Mozilla, we still need a good browser that is GPL'ed.

For lists of a lot of licenses, see the opensource.org approved licenses and GPL Compatible Licenses - these last basically can be combined in software with GPL'ed code. Also note License that are incompatible with the GPL.

Upon further examination, I see that if you are not going to use the GPL, you should at least use a license that would allow your code to be used in the same project with GPL'ed code. This is the case with the revised BSD license (without the advertising class) and the MIT license but not the Mozilla license, or, significantly, the Python license - in some cases the incompatibility is not caused by restrictions by what you can do with the code but in the case of Python it's because the licensed is governed by the laws of the state of Virginia in the U.S.A.

Sometimes people do specifically choose to use things like the MIT License because they intend for it to be used for commercial use. My friend Andy Green who wrote the ZooLib cross-platform application framework is an independent consultant, and he had it in mind to make things easier for other consultants and small commercial developers, as well as free software developers. It was a complex decision but they people with an interest in the code ultimately agreed on the MIT license.

On the one hand, this allows people like Microsoft to write cross-platform closed-source products that would compete with free software - so MS could port their products to ZooLib and have source compatibility with Linux, Windows and Mac (and BeOS too), and this source would be closed, which could be a problem.

On the other hand, the ready availability of an open source but commercially-compatible crossplatform library gives power to the third-party developer at the expense of all OS vendors whether closed or open source, which I feel is arguably a good thing.

So it is a complex decision, really. But I think that, when in doubt, use the GPL. If you hold the copyright yourself, you can always supply a separately licensed version to people who pay you for it. For example, while the CygWin library (a POSIX API for Windows, part of a GNU programming environment that is largely source-code compatible with Linux) is under the GPL, you can purchase a proprietary license for it from Redhat which is actually pretty expensive from the terms they used to have on their page.

Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc

You should only choose another license if you specifically intend to allow anyone to make closed-source, commercial use of your code.

That's why it's pointed out in an earlier comment that Microsoft wouldn't base an offerring on Linux, but on BSD - as Apple is doing, with Mac OS X.

The Free Software Foundation recommends against the general use of the LGPL - formerly called the GNU Library Public License but now called the lesser public license.

Generally, you'd only want to use the LGPL if there is already an existing high-quality library that is available in closed-source form and you want yours to be adopted by people who want to keep the source to their applications closed. This was done, for example, with glibc, to make a replacement for the proprietary libc popular.

But if you're writing a totally new library, or if you feel that your library is a significant improvement on an existing closed-source library, using the GPL rather than the LGPL will draw new free software into the world, and although it won't prevent people from selling your work, it will prevent them from holding the source closed.

Licenses that would be inappropriate for competing with Microsoft would be the BSD License or the MIT License, the Apache License or the Mozilla Public License.

That's why, despite Mozilla, we still need a good browser that is GPL'ed.

For lists of a lot of licenses, see the opensource.org approved licenses and GPL Compatible Licenses - these last basically can be combined in software with GPL'ed code. Also note License that are incompatible with the GPL.

Upon further examination, I see that if you are not going to use the GPL, you should at least use a license that would allow your code to be used in the same project with GPL'ed code. This is the case with the revised BSD license (without the advertising class) and the MIT license but not the Mozilla license, or, significantly, the Python license - in some cases the incompatibility is not caused by restrictions by what you can do with the code but in the case of Python it's because the licensed is governed by the laws of the state of Virginia in the U.S.A.

Sometimes people do specifically choose to use things like the MIT License because they intend for it to be used for commercial use. My friend Andy Green who wrote the ZooLib cross-platform application framework is an independent consultant, and he had it in mind to make things easier for other consultants and small commercial developers, as well as free software developers. It was a complex decision but they people with an interest in the code ultimately agreed on the MIT license.

On the one hand, this allows people like Microsoft to write cross-platform closed-source products that would compete with free software - so MS could port their products to ZooLib and have source compatibility with Linux, Windows and Mac (and BeOS too), and this source would be closed, which could be a problem.

On the other hand, the ready availability of an open source but commercially-compatible crossplatform library gives power to the third-party developer at the expense of all OS vendors whether closed or open source, which I feel is arguably a good thing.

So it is a complex decision, really. But I think that, when in doubt, use the GPL. If you hold the copyright yourself, you can always supply a separately licensed version to people who pay you for it. For example, while the CygWin library (a POSIX API for Windows, part of a GNU programming environment that is largely source-code compatible with Linux) is under the GPL, you can purchase a proprietary license for it from Redhat which is actually pretty expensive from the terms they used to have on their page.

Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc

You should only choose another license if you specifically intend to allow anyone to make closed-source, commercial use of your code.

That's why it's pointed out in an earlier comment that Microsoft wouldn't base an offerring on Linux, but on BSD - as Apple is doing, with Mac OS X.

The Free Software Foundation recommends against the general use of the LGPL - formerly called the GNU Library Public License but now called the lesser public license.

Generally, you'd only want to use the LGPL if there is already an existing high-quality library that is available in closed-source form and you want yours to be adopted by people who want to keep the source to their applications closed. This was done, for example, with glibc, to make a replacement for the proprietary libc popular.

But if you're writing a totally new library, or if you feel that your library is a significant improvement on an existing closed-source library, using the GPL rather than the LGPL will draw new free software into the world, and although it won't prevent people from selling your work, it will prevent them from holding the source closed.

Licenses that would be inappropriate for competing with Microsoft would be the BSD License or the MIT License, the Apache License or the Mozilla Public License.

That's why, despite Mozilla, we still need a good browser that is GPL'ed.

For lists of a lot of licenses, see the opensource.org approved licenses and GPL Compatible Licenses - these last basically can be combined in software with GPL'ed code. Also note License that are incompatible with the GPL.

Upon further examination, I see that if you are not going to use the GPL, you should at least use a license that would allow your code to be used in the same project with GPL'ed code. This is the case with the revised BSD license (without the advertising class) and the MIT license but not the Mozilla license, or, significantly, the Python license - in some cases the incompatibility is not caused by restrictions by what you can do with the code but in the case of Python it's because the licensed is governed by the laws of the state of Virginia in the U.S.A.

Sometimes people do specifically choose to use things like the MIT License because they intend for it to be used for commercial use. My friend Andy Green who wrote the ZooLib cross-platform application framework is an independent consultant, and he had it in mind to make things easier for other consultants and small commercial developers, as well as free software developers. It was a complex decision but they people with an interest in the code ultimately agreed on the MIT license.

On the one hand, this allows people like Microsoft to write cross-platform closed-source products that would compete with free software - so MS could port their products to ZooLib and have source compatibility with Linux, Windows and Mac (and BeOS too), and this source would be closed, which could be a problem.

On the other hand, the ready availability of an open source but commercially-compatible crossplatform library gives power to the third-party developer at the expense of all OS vendors whether closed or open source, which I feel is arguably a good thing.

So it is a complex decision, really. But I think that, when in doubt, use the GPL. If you hold the copyright yourself, you can always supply a separately licensed version to people who pay you for it. For example, while the CygWin library (a POSIX API for Windows, part of a GNU programming environment that is largely source-code compatible with Linux) is under the GPL, you can purchase a proprietary license for it from Redhat which is actually pretty expensive from the terms they used to have on their page.

Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc

source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Unless I have the right to run this program under Windows 2000 (for stability) and to ftp these "punch cards" to my friend in Holland for free, it does not meet RMS's definition of free software.

I propose that you either port your "punch card" software to Visual Basic, GW-Basic, QuickBasic, and perl, and release it under the GPL, or withdraw your offer of "closed-source" software, which is not welcome on this forum.

Thanks, cunt!

Love,
Slashfucker

(end comment) */ }

Neither Sun's Community license nor the APSL are Open Source licenses. Try again.

You can find a list of approved Open Source licenses at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

BSD is NOT open source. it doesn not meet the open-source license critera as designed by bruce perins.

But the BSD License, version 2.0, does meet Eric S. Raymond's Open Source Definition (the Debian free software guidelines are nearly identical) as well as being a non-copyle ft GPL-compatible free software license according to Richard M. "Goat ScanDisker" Stallman

The issue is:

Are we telling people about software as speech (de-CSS in English, requires login), or about Open Source as FREE Software.

Recently I handled some people, people who barely knew about computers and internet, social sciences people, "The Cathedral and The Bazaar". The results were amazing. They caught the story completely and now we are discussing the issues with a new light.

My moral would be: tell teachers and parents about the new social values of Cooperative Development and sharing versus cheating, and the battle will be won, no matter if they use Windows. Tell teacher to start cooperative projects, OSS like, using the Internet as a collaborative tool. They will find it a great idea once they catch the concepts (and it's difficult for them to understand the issues). The boys will learn to use the mail to speak, no matter if they use Exchange or even Outlook for that.

That should be our target. When they know about Free Software and how it develops and evolves, they will compare it with propietary solutions, and they will have a clear mind to understand the differences.

Sorry for the evangelic tone, but I feeled truly evangelic ;)

--
Spelling by m-w.com.

OK, call that subject the reaction to reading too much FUD on here lately, and at having that FUD directed at a License *I* release code under; my appologies.

That said, the OSD, is derived from the DFSG. Both of which clearly contain points related to free (as in speech) code such as #3, #4, #6, #8 and #9. As well as the expected free (as in beer) points you're thinking of: #1, #2, #4 - 7, and #9. As I said, if they don't meet your definitions of free (as in beer and speech) then WHAT DOES?

Now, IANAL, however I have read through both licenses in detail... what have I missed? What does your obviously superior legal knowledge expose that makes the IBMPL not free as in beer AND free as in speech? And what is it about the IBMPL that prevents software released under it from being included in a Linux distro? are you somehow indicating that just because the kernel and much of the runtime is released under the GPL that this means ALL software in the distro must also be GPL? If that's what you're thinking then you've missed the point of #9.

The IBM Public License ("IBM Open Source Licence" is a typo/lack of understanding) is fully endorsed by the OSI. It was originally called the Jikes Compiler License, but when corporate wanted to use it for more projects they renamed it. You'll notice that Jikes is included in many of the current distros, hell, it's even in main debian and if that doesn't fit your definition of free I don't know what will!

But you get what you pay for, dont you. And we all know how unreliable and unstable apache is, right? You had better go and shell out some cash to Netscape or somebody else if you want a reliable webserver. Please!

Just because Mr Ellison wants to drink your blood after he has raped your bank account, does not mean that his product is infallible. Having said that, anybody who knows their db's would have to agree though that Oracle does do a rather nice job.

But I will support MySQL till the day it bombs out and is not recoverable (this has not happened to me in 5 years). I will do it simply to say fuck you to Larry and simply because I cannot afford to buy him a new tennis court and simply because if we all support MySQL now, one day when transactions, stored procedures and row-level locking are implemented we can all take the money we saved by not buying oracle and have a big party and not invite the fools who still think that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Lets all say it together: O-P-E-N--S-O-U-R-C-E.

Though proprietary, it is as 'Open Source' as lots of code people here praise.

Strange, I haven't seen any praise falling on anything that didn't meet the Open Source definition. On the other hand, there's been disdain for the QPL, which did meet that definition but wasn't GPL-compatible, and there's been absolute loating for the SCSL, which isn't open source but is at least closer than "published source" from IBM.

The software incorporates the Zend Engine, a product of Zend Technologies, Ltd. ("Zend"). The Zend Engine is licensed to the PHP Association pursuant to a grant from Zend that can be found at http://www.php.net/license/ZendGrant/) for distribution to you under this license agreement, only as a part of PHP. In the event that you separate the Zend Engine (or any portion thereof) from the rest of the software, or modify the Zend Engine, or any portion thereof, your use of the separated or modified Zend Engine software shall not be governed by this license, and instead shall be governed by the license set forth at http://www.zend.com/license/ZendLicense/.

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

"adj, (freer, freest) not under the control or power of another; having social and political liberty; independent; able to move in any direction; not burdened by obligations; not conformed to the usual rules; not exact; generous; frank; with no cost or charge; exempt from taxes, duties, etc; clear of obstruction; not fastened"

Your distinction between "Free Software" and "Open Source" makes no sense. GPLed code is "licensed by contract" (the GPL) while the Open Source Definition explicitely states that Open Sourec is freely redistributable -- in fact, it's the first requirement.

The distinction between Open Source and Free Software is an artificial one created by RMS, because he doesn't like others stealing his thunder. "Open Source" is actually a more accurate term, since "free software" actually takes away just as many freedoms as it gives.

Where in his entire discussion did it say that it was going to be lisenced under the GPL, all he said was that it was going to be open source

You misunderstand my point. My point is that if I have a game that is written under the GPL, and I want to make it available for free for the Indrema, will I be able to do so without a clash occuring between the GPL, and the certification agreement with Indrema? Presumably if I get it certified, I will have to agree not to distribute the certified game for money, and require this of anyone who downloads the game, which will voilate the GPL on the game.

In fact the first clause of the Open Source Definition specifies that an Open Source license must allow commercial distribution, but that is irrelevant to my post.

The notion of working with the actual compiled objects, and the serialized MVC-setup is so amazing that it might be very hard to understand that power to those who are used to "code generators", and remember, this "revolutionary way" of creating apps, is about TEN YEARS OLD.

But what I recently read in the annotations from ESR in the Halloween I document precisely describes what happened to a lot of Unix tools and task-concepts, when NeXTSTEP hit the - mostly Open Source - BSD developerworld - I quote:

The other way is the Unix/Internet/Web way, which is to separate the engine (which does the work) from the UI (which does the viewing and control). This approach requires that the engine and UI communicate using a well-defined protocol. It's exemplified by browser/server pairs -- the engine specializes in being an engine, and the UI specializes in being a UI.

With this second approach, overall complexity goes down and reliability goes up. Further, the interface is easier to evolve/improve/customize, precisely because it's not tightly coupled to the engine. It's even possible to have multiple interfaces tuned to different audiences.

This is exactly where the first power of the NeXT GUI and Interface Builder showed up: Unix utilities plummed to a GUI front-end. Great stuff, DRY(*) compliant stuff!

(*)DRY : Don't Repeat Yourself - from the Pragmatic Programmer (a great book BTW)

This would encourage innovation on the part of the authors without posing a threat to the patent holders' government-granted monopoly, since open software is not a commercial competitor in itself.

You don't think Microsoft views Linux as a competitor?

-