Slashdot Mirror
Akopia Buys Minivend
David Adams of Akopia e-mailed me to let me know that Akopia has bought Minivend. Minivend is an open source project, and the creator along with several top developers will be joining Akopia. Akopia has Tallyman, which is also an e-commerce package, with different strengths. Why does this matter? The license is the GPL, and this is one of those situations where the open source project beats the closed source hands down. Congrats to Akopia.
Making sure that the source modifications always comes back to the originators is not the purpose of the GPL.
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that people never get stuck with these black-box binaries that are the only way to access their data, so if something goes wrong (like a bug pops up or the source owner goes under), they can still deal with the problem and access their own data, and get it out to their friends. It's a very serious threat in the long term; how much data was lost from the early days because it was on non-standard storage media? Now we've learned to transfer everything from computer to computer before it is lost, but losing access to the software access mechanisms could be as harmful as losing access to the hardware access mechanisms was back then.
That is the freedom the GPL is about: the freedom to access your own work, and to share it with your friends, without following the terms of a distant gatekeeper. It's the freedom to write a program, and let people run it without having to buy an operating system. It's the freedom to write a document, and let people read it without buying a special program for it. It's the freedom to make a movie, and let people watch it without having to buy a special player approved and taxed by a consortium.
All software defines a standard of some sort. It might be a data standard or a usage standard, but it's something that people have to invest in, and their investment should not be controlled by the creator of the software. Seperating the standards from the source is impractical, except under unusual conditions where the standards are built first, and the programs are mere implementations of it (in that case, though, why not simply compile the standard? if it's rigorous enough to fully define compliant systems, a computer program should be able to implement it). In general, for the standards to be libre, the source must be libre.
That is why it is important that embraced and extended versions of GPL software not be proprietary. It is better that they not be created at all, no matter how much more useful and valuable they are to the end user. The infection of the system with proprietary softare (and therefore, proprietary standards) is an attack on our individual freedoms (you can't hear what another says without buying the same software they use, you can't offer them your work without forcing them to pay a third party), and must be prevented, if possible. Offering a tool to make proprietary software is like paying taxes that will be used to enslave others.
The "in-house use" loophole has always been there. It's never been a big deal. If some company has your data locked up in their servers, it doesn't matter whether you have access to the source they use, you still can't access your own work without their co-operation. For you to bother with them in the first place, they must offer it back to you in a useable form. There's no cure for it, and none is needed.
[BTW, I don't really agree with all this rubbish; I believe in public domain software. But, for that matter, I'm not entirely against censorship or even slavery. In a world where every bite you eat could go into the mouth of a starving child (of which there will never be a shortage; people who rein in their breeding will inevitably be displaced by those who don't), a morality based on egalitarian concepts like universal freedom inevitably either contradicts itself or amounts to a collective suicide. Either way, if you follow such a morality to its logical end, you will just make room for someone with less fastidious (or utterly unrelated) moral standards. All I know for sure is that I see starving children on TV every day, and I still take second helpings at dinner. After all, they're not my children.]
I developed one or two sites in Minivend. I found it to be mind-numbingly slow, and its in-page markup/scripting language was worse than anything I've seen before or since, and that's including Net.Data. Minivend's scripting language is a series of hacks piled upon hacks piled upon hacks. Getting it to do even the simplest of things is an exercise in pain-endurance.
If it's a choice between Minivend and nothing, I'd probably go with nothing. All you really need to replace the vast majority of its 'features' is an in-page scripting language with decent session support.
I'm afraid, in this case, saying that it beats the closed-source solutions is just demonstrating that you've never compared its features or performance with what's being sold at the moment.
Charles Miller
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
The GPL is meaningless for online apps.
A company can download your app, modify it, and then never contribute the source back to you if they choose, because the source only has to be distibuted with the binaries, and the binaries are never distributed.
While most people understand this now, I feel it is time for a new licence to be created. It should say something like:
If this code is ever used in a publically accessible service, then the source for it and all your modifications must be easily available.
Of course, we would need to define "source-code" as including database schemes, but not data, and including HTML templates, but not orginal artwork etc.
"Publically accessible" also needs to be defined. If someone has to register for the site, does that make it publically accessible, for instance? I think it should in most cases.
I think a licence like that would be more in the spirit of the GPL.
On the other hand, maybe there is little need for it, because there is little competitve advantage in keeping your modifications private - it is cheaper to let everyone debug them, and compete on branding.
I believe the SourceForge people have been considering these issues in some depth.
----------///------------
[phone rings, Hemos answers]
Hemos: Hello?
Joe Random Executive: Hi, is this Slashdot? I want some of this free publicity!
Hemos: Well, you know our policy. Do you have a press release?
Joe Random Executive: Yep!
Hemos: Does it contain the words "open" and "source?"
Joe Random Executive: Yep!
Hemos: Fine. Just e-mail me the name of your company and your website URL. I'll have it up tomorrow morning, under a random topic.
Joe Random Executive: Fine, just don't put it in the BSD section! No one reads that!
Hemos: Yeah, alright. BSD sure sucks, huh?
Joe Random Executive: It sure does!
Hemos: What a bunch of losers...
Joe Random Executive: Yeah, yeah... gotta run, m'kay? Thanks for the advertis -- I mean, Open Source announcements. Ciao!
Hemos: Whatever. Later.
[hangs up phone]
[time passes...]
[the next morning...]
Slashdot, top story, under the "Linux" icon:
CmdrTaco (voice of Ricky Ricardo): Heemooooooooos!!!
Hemos: Oh, shit... I forget the Golden Rule: never mix a poor editorial decision-making process with grain alcohol!
---------///----------
--
I like to watch.