Slashdot Mirror
OSI Approves Apple, IBM Licenses
Thought the GPL was a nice license for your software project, one that fit with your thoughts about software freedom? Perhaps the BSD license was more to your taste? Well, even if you confine yourself to the ones approved by the Open Source Initiative, you can now choose from a grand total of 23 different licenses. Two new licenses have been blessed by the OSI: IBM's Common Public License Version 0.5, and the Apple Public Source License 1.2. Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license. So here we are with at least 23, and rising.
Hello paid microsoft employees, your FUD seems to be working. The slashbots seem to be agreeing with you. It's great, they don't even realize they are falling for your plan, but it's ok.
He has a big beard, thus we will do as he says. Tis' the hacker way.
Link errors noted and fixed.
Thanks,
- Robin
The GPL is specifically not a contract. It does not impose any restrictions that are not already in existence due to copyright. It merely offers a conditional grant of other rights in excess of those that would normally be enjoyed.
The example you gave -- "all are permitted to redistribute this work, in original or modified form, so long as they do not remove this notice, including the copyright notice and disclaimer" -- is no different. It also offers rights beyond what would normally be available to others under copyright law, conditioned on certain actions (preserving the notice). It's just that the conditions are somewhat different.
And, in the APSL commentary section - http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html:
You don't have the right to impose terms on other people's software, anyway. People can distribute whatever they like in patch form, no matter how the original source is licensed.
This was tossed around a bit when Minix still had a non-free license and people were pondering how to make it into a useful system instead of just an academic toy. The idea was, you'd buy a specific release of Minix (it came with source code) and then apply a huge patch. Of course, then Linux came along and BSD freed itself of its encumberances, so Minix was just left by the wayside and it became a moot point.
Likewise, no one can change the terms of your software unless you specifically assign rights to them. That's why the BSD folks say: But, the original source is always there! Just because someone released a proprietary version based on BSD code does not make the original BSD code proprietary as well.
It sounds like you're asking for the BSD license.
Now I cannot distribute work derived from code under many licenses, including GPL, unless I am agreeing to some very special conditions. So adding yet another one doesn't change anything in my stand - I still need a lawyer to understand each one of them. Unless all licensing stuff is scrapped altogether, it is going to be so forever.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
What's bad in having 23, or, for that matter, 230 licenses? So RMS doesn't hold a monopoly on determining what open source is and what it is not, big deal. If we don't need software monopoly, why do we need license monopoly?
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
I guess the USA isn't a free country. I can't freely go around killing people! :( Does a free country have no laws? Free doesn't mean you can do anything you want. Can you use it? FREE! Can you base another software program on it as well? FREE! Stallman only asks one thing of you and that is you can't undermind his copyright. If he allows you to use the code you can't take that away from others.
Course you want to be able to use someone else software to lock up the code. To not release the source. To make it un-free. You think that it's unfair that you can't take his code an take it away from him. Your just another BSD troll saying the GPL is viral. The BSD license makes restrictions as well.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
> I think RMS is just a little out of touch today anyway.
Possible.
> He's too unyeilding, and that never leads to success.
Boy, you got that right. When will people learn that revolutionaries never win? That's why Massachusetts still pays taxes to England, and Texas is still a part of Mexico.
> you DO have to balance a company wanting to make money with open source work, and the community.
No you don't.
> I'm surprised someone hasn't lambasted id/Carmack for releasing the code to their games, and yet not making it Free.
Last I checked, id's release of Quake was under the terms of the GPL. By definition, that code is free software.
--Lenny
> To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
And tell me how he denies any programmers of their rights? Is he somehow denying them by not letting them redistribute his software under a license not of his choosing? No, he's *granting* them rights to his software. You can argue that BSD or Artistic licenses grant *more* privelidges, but the GPL certainly doesn't *take away* rights, it merely grants more limited rights. Don't confure less positive with a negative.
> As it is, he can be a royal pain.
Has he been calling you up and bothering you lately? Has he been threatening you personally? No, he just states his mind. People seem to think that Stallman is "out to get" other software projects, but mostly people go to him and say "do you like this non-GPL license?", to which he will say "no". Big surprise there. We wouldn't hear nearly as much out of Stallman if people weren't constantly seeking his opinion.
> But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT.
So is "free code" this amazing new concept of your's, or are you just trying dodge the phrase "free software", which was defined by Stallman himself? The gift philosophy is more or less the BSD mindset. That's great, but that's not "free software". By definition, what Stallman is pushing is "free software".
> For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom!
That is a blatant lie. Without the GPL you have no rights to the code. With it, you are granted limited rights. If the license was BSD, you would arguably have more rights, but the fact of the matter is that the GPL is *adding* to your rights. So, effectively, you are whining because Stallman isn't giving you all that you want out of him. You seem to want him to give you *his* software on *your* terms.
> So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous.
Who, precisely, is more qualified to comment on free software than the man who created the term to begin with, and founded the Free Software Foundation?
> What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software.
No, they are dictating how you use *their* software. Sorry if it cramps your style, but the GPL grants us a whole heck of a lot of rights.
> If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts
He's not interested in gifts, he's interested in freedom. Not just freedom in the here and now, but *sustained* freedom. That is where the BSD and GPL camps really diverge. The GPL makes provisions to ensure *continued* freedom. You may feel that the provision is to onerous, but atleast understand it's purpose.
-Lenny
> I just love the way sexism is endemic to this community
Sexism is endemic to most of human society, and there's no reason to think this community is any better . . . or any worse. As an anonymous coward pointed out, in your responce, you made the assumption that a person being raped must be female, another sexist view.
...as long as we've mentioned "free" licenses, let's be sure to bring up the infamous GPL, known wide and far for the "freedom" it gives users and programmers.
Of course, the astute reader will point out that the use of the word freedom in the previous sentence is complete bullshit, and that the GPL is reality just a viral piece of socialist hogwash.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
This is precisely the kind of jackass behavior I'd expect from an anonymous coward. Thanks for being a shining example of the stupidity that runs rampant on /.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code.
Still, some people seem to have problem understanding "free software". It was never ment to mean that you could just take it and do with it as you wish (as in beer).
It's the *software* that is free, and the fact that it's freedom blocks your freedom in some areas (you can't "imprison" it in "un-free" software) seem to be the source of this annoyance.
But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
I assure you that this is complete nonsense, of cource you can do as you wish with your code. It's the code of *others* that you can't do with as you wish.
--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D727
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
People don't become maniacs simply by having ideas about property rights that differ from yours. Nor does Stallman deny authors anything. What he does is provide a model license that gives authors the option of sharing their software in a way that ensures everyone who partakes of it must also share. This is a common virtue we push in elementary schools; it only becomes anathema, apparently, when we suggest that adults might want to voluntarily be nice to their fellow adults. Of course, people have been killed for less, but what the hell.
Stallman's use of the word 'free' can be a bit counter-intuitive, but as countless thousands of people have noted, English lacks native words for all but the crudest notions of freedom and cost-free-ness.
The GPL has its place. I don't agree with Stallman's belief that all software should be GPLed, but the abuses of "free" and "open source" software by large corporations over the past couple of years clearly demonstrate that if you give an inch to greedy, unethical suits, they'll take a mile, every time. Maybe this matters in some cases, maybe it doesn't. The GPL is available for those cases when it does.
If you want truly free software in the commonly understood sense of the word, you need to prepend these words to your source code:
The problem is that the vast majority of the people who decry the restrictions of the GPL as unfree are seldom willing to actually go that far and make their own software absolutely free. There is a lesson to be drawn from this which will probably not sit well with rigidly doctrinaire libertarians, so I leave it as an exercise to the reader.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I'm not sure if this is ironic any more or just a sign of the fickle nature of slashdot.
The IBM Common Public License is a derivative of the IBM Public License (IANAL summary: removed reference to IBM Corp. as originators of licensed material.)
The IBM Public License is a derivative of the Jikes Compiler License. (IANAL summary: remove reference to Jikes as the licensed material.)
The Jikes Compiler License when it came out was lauded by slashdot and the open source community in general. The major driving force behind it (Dave Shields from TJWatson research center) was rewarded with overnight celebrity for the countless hours he spent with the legal department trying to explain reality to them.
Now the legal department steals a move from us engineers by using the "generalize and reuse" pattern and they get mocked and rideculed on the front page?
In these three licenses (they're all the same really, even Jikes doesn't use the Jikes Compiler License anymore) we have an Open Source license backed by the largest company in the industry, one that a number of other companies have already asked to "borrow"... it ONLY MAKES SENSE that these companies should get together and come up with one common license.
I'm sure the reason many companies make their own licenses up is that there's far too much propaganda in the GPL and LGPL. If you're a company that survives by selling 'non-free' software it's rather galling to include a license that rants on about how bad it is that you should do this.
>distorted vision for the future of software. To
>the extent that he denies a software author the
>right to do with his code as he pleases, the man
>is a maniac.
You mean how dare I demand the same treatment from you as you got from me, I.E. the publication of any source code derived from my work?
How dare I, as a software author, attach a price tag to my work which you only have to pay if your code incorporates my own?
Nobody ever said you had to include any GPLed code in a program you write, and if that's your attitude about it I seriously hope you never do.
Rob
>his software 'free', but as you well point out,
>it comes with a price tag. I am not arguing
>whether or not it this price tag is reasonable -
>I agree that if you give me something, you should
>be able to attach any conditions you wish to it.
Yes, and in a truly "free" society murder wouldn't be a crime, would it? Otherwise, you'd be free to commit it.
I believe that's called "anarchy". If you stop and think about it, the bill of rights is just a list of behaviors that are prevented. (Can't censor people. Can't take people's guns away. Can't stop people from getting together in large groups...) What a totalitarian document.
You should contact your authorities, or if you feel compeled, just sue them yourselves.
One of the (possible) platforms discussed was one of the gaming consoles. RMS diddnt know what they were, and was confused at why someone would want one.
He was either being factious, or he actualy dosent know what a gaming console is. The later makes him out of touch with reality, and the former indicates that he thinks he is above the common man. Either way, not a good thing.
AS I recall there was a bit of discussion on the console issue, so his confusion was more then just off the cuff confusion. And it was email anyway. RMS diddnt know what gaming consoles were.
My point is that he is out of touch with reality. Yes he has made some significant technical contributions. But I realy couldnt see me aligning with him, even if I did think the GPL was the best license.
Incedently, I dont own a game console, and havent even playd one in years.
Im sure you know that aliasing has something to do with graphics. Not even knowingwhat a gaming console is is on par with not knowing what a washing machine is. You might not have one, and you might not want to have one, but you know what one is.
Sam TH
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
You want to see source or not? Fer chrissakes, some is better than none. Deal with the fact that releasing code under the GPL is a particularly stupid thing for a corporation who is supposed to make a profit to do. Thanks to the recent economic shakeout getting rid of the plethora of linux-oriented companies, there's not much you can point to to say "Free" software is very profitable.
-lx
What is your point? No where did I say that programmers don't, or should not, have that right to determine the terms and conditions of their software. Stallman, however, clearly has issues with this with his objections to copyrights (well all intellectual property, but copyright is much narrow and harder to confuse with other issues), despite the fact that he uses it in employing the key part of the GPL (the "viral" elements). This is something of a contradiction, whether or not its advocates admit it or not. In essense, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
The argument that GPL is only necessary because of intellectual property laws is misleading and fallacious. Firstly, if this is true, then BSD-style licenses work just as well. Secondly, there is nothing in a IP-free world that mandates the opening of source code (never mind the production of it) by derivative works.
Oh bullshit. Where is that written? Even if it is, who says every word the man writes is his honest intention? Maybe he really does want to have his cake and eat it too. He wants intellectual property to protect his right to make things just so, in his own view, but not for others. Even if you accept this silly theory, Stallman is saying one thing and doing another. You can't honestly say man has no right to own an idea, yet assume ownership of your own (and others) ideas by commanding others to do a little dance for him. While you may assert this is just a means to an end, it still hypocritical, not to mention unsubstantiated.
Show me where specifically he has stated that he CREATED the GPL to actually INFLICT damage on the IP system. [As opposed to merely using IP laws to bolster the GPL, quite different.] Anyways, that's besides the point, I find it very hard to believe that even Stallman thinks his little theory is going to turn the IP world on its head. I don't buy it.
He IS saying one thing and DOING another, even if he thinks the ENDS justifies the MEANS. It's like saying murder is absolutely unethical, then murdering a murder. Some people choose to take the higher road.
What's more, if he truely believes his "free" philosophy creates better software, he should put his money where his mouth is. If pure GPL software consistently produces better software (from any and all perspectives), who is going to spend time and money buying propreitary software? Even if closed source companies "steal" open source, surely they have nothing to add, right? It'd just be a cheap immitation of the real thing, right? If one truely believes this, then BSD-ish license would be the way to go. In other words, he could still turn the world on his head (if he believes in the absolute superiority) without ANY IP protection.
To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
RMS has ever said anything like that.
You can release your code under any license you want - RMS just advises users to be aware of all the restrictions and lock-ins associated with proprietary software.
Even if you release code under the GPL you still own the copyright and can do whatever you want with it including making derived works which you exclusively own and can try to sell under other licenses.
1) Write a game server engine
2) Write a game client
3) GPL the client
4) Charge to hook into the server.
That's sort of bare bones, but the principle should be clear.
OTOH, it might be difficult to prevent cheating.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No, it isn't a free market. Is this a surprise?
I know that there is a lot of flag waving and pontification about the virtues of a free market, but the people who do it the most have a government subsidy check in their pocket and lots of nice laws custom made to suit their needs.
Do not expect a power structure to create a level playing field. That is not, and never has been, their goal. (There may exist brief [1 ruler long] exceptions, but that has not been proved to my satisfaction.)
The first purpose of an organization is to survive. If it doesn't do that, then you will never hear about it. This is an always true.
So don't be surprised if the world looks like that. Recognize rhetoric, and don't invest belief in it.
I am commonly called a cynic, so you don't need to believe this, but you probably look like an unfair competitor too. (I can practically guarantee this, if I am allowed to choose the viewpoint character.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's basically a pretty good license, but a few quibbles:
What is the maximum value of N that would qualify the product as free? If 10^10 is acceptable, then all software is free, no matter what the laws say.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm not opposed to RMS but I want to release my software without some of the impositions that GPL has. LGPL might be closer, or maybe the modified BSD licence or the Apache license.
The way I want to have my restrictions work is that if any recipient of my software (or any modification of my software), merges in their own modifications, they are not obligated to release the source code of their modifications. They will also not be obligated to distribute my original source code. If they do choose to release their source code integrated with my code, they must distribute that under the same terms (but if they distribute separate, e.g. my code and their patch, they may use any license terms they wish for their part). I want to prevent the terms of my software from being changed, but I do not want to impose any terms on anyone else's software.
And yes, I realize that means Microsoft could use my software, not distribute any source, not acknowledge it, and never even tell me about it, all legally.
Suggestions?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Thanks for the witticism. Here's one of mine: "If you have to say it anonymously, it isn't worth saying."
I had high score (32-ish) on a server with like 27 people on it. I'm allowed to bitch about the latest DRI snapshot sucking when I'm high scorer. Keep the Zen platitudes to yourself.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
I think one of the greatest efficiencies of free software is in reducing friction in reuse of other work in ways that may not have been imagined originally. For this to occur easily enough so that this efficiency is not offset by some other inneficiency (like negiating license exceptions), mutually compatible copying conditions are necessary.
Currently, the largest set of mutually compatible free software available is the set defined by GPL compatibility. This includes the new BSD copying conditions, the "MIT style" copying conditions, public domain, and many other varieties. The GPL also covers many crucial system components, like gcc. So, for reasons of both the amount of software and the specific software covered, it is unlikely that a superior pool of mutually cominglable free software will be created in the near future that does not include some GPL'ed software.
So, currently, if you care about the network effects and efficiency benefits of Open Source, even if you don't give a hoot about Free Software, your most effective maintenance strategy is to use GPL-compatible copying conditions (not necessarily the GPL), not because you think the GPL came from heaven, but primarily because the GPL has itself become a dominant technology compatibility standard.
Am I the only person who wishes that, as part of certifying a license, OSI would provide a concise explanation of what it means in practice? Obviously you still need to read the license IF you are going to use it, but in choosing a license for a brand new project it would be useful to have a summary of key features to help decide.
One of the reasons I always use GPL or MIT (depending on context) is that they are well-understood in the community, and so we don't get bogged down in legalese.
Could this be a case of diversity being harmful for the community (but, I'm sure, being beneficial to the initial developers in some way)?
> To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
How does he do that?
> For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom!
Which perhaps explains why they call it a "license".
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If the sign said "this is number you call to report violators of the GPL" then you'd approve?
how is it different?
As I understand it, one of the main differences is that the IBM Public License could only apply to files that were originally created by IBM, while the Common Public License would allow non-IBM employees to contribute new files to a project and apply the Common Public License to those files. Apparently it's pretty hard to run an open-source project without allowing other people to contribute a new file :)
The section of the IBM Public License that details that restriction follows:
Completely off-topic, I know, but I just love the way sexism is endemic to this community - the guy writing that post didnt deliberately make a sexist comment, but what he said came out very much like raping the boss's wife was just another way of being nasty to the boss.
What it should have been, of course, is:
You live in a Free Country. But you are not free to steal; you are not free to shoot your boss or rape her.
--Ben
Very, true.
:-P
The arguments of slothbait can be basically used for any license...
You can basically s/GPL/M$ EULA/g && s/Stallman/Bill Gates/ and it will still makes sence.
The whole purpose of the GPL is to restrict the use of open source software so it can never be closed source. Althought that might seen as a worthy cause.. remember, nothing that is FORCED is good in the long run...
Maybe the BSD license is too idealistic, but i like it. It gets good code/ideas to spread and become standards.
The GPL tries to twist arms.. and people/companies don't like their arms twisted
This is just my opinion.. deal with it!
Where's that definition?
There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit.
And neither is it wrong with free software companies using free software for profit. There are also a lot of free software companies today selling free software for profit. So I don't understand what you're arguing.
And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
There has always been a need for free software. That's why we have GNU/Linux today, and lots of companies selling free GNU/Linux distributions.
Oh, and in case you haven't got the point yet, "free" in this context was never about price, it's about freedom. This was what was mentioned in the article, and what you completely failed to realize. I'd recommend reading up a bit on the the definition of free software. There you have a definition.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
Depends on your definition of free. For example, the OSI definitions of Open Source software explicitly state that an OSI licensed work cannot be charged for:
From www.opensource.org:
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Im afraid you're in the wrong market then. Proprietary consumer productivity software is dead as a market. There you're stuck between Microsoft on one side that will implement your programs if they're useful and bundle them with windows, opensource on another side who will implement it if anyone cares about the software and will give it away for free, the problem that this type of software becomes pretty much 'finished' on the third side, and consumer reluctance to pay for each and every little component in a system.
Id advise you go into consulting, some vertical market, entertainment markets or some market that doesnt have the same dead end mechanics built into that market.
Well, IANAL either, and 3 minutes isnt enough to figure out a license really, but from a quick reading it seems you're right.
Looks pretty much like GPL, but with less work done on specifying problematic technical software issues like linking, and with more work gone into the disclaiming and patent parts. If you read it more carefully, you cannot change the license on binaries. You can issue a disjointed license on binaries but then it has to conform to both, and there is nothing preventing that on GPL software either (Ie, you can say "I will provide warranty for this software in the form distributed by me" in your extra license and that would be ok for both GPL and this IBM license).
Of course, the GPL deals with these issues too. So, yet another license that isnt saying anything original but which is very likely incompatible with the GPL (the license revocation clause was the first thing I thought of).
That should be easy. Doesn't your unique creation deserve licence number 24, the HelloWorld.java Open Public Free Source Software Licence?
If Ximian gave away their services for nothing to push a competitor out of the market so that they could then raise prices and make a fortune then that would be dumping, yes. If they give away software as a sustainable long term plan and make pofits on services that others could equally provide then that is not dumping. If we assume that Microsoft becomes unable to make money from selling software as a result of Gnome then they can still provide whatever services Ximian plan to provide.
If Wacky Hacker develops a copy of your product and releases it for free and drives you out of the market, that's not a crime
Correct
despite that the effect is the same.
The effect is not the same. In the dumping example once the competition is forced out of the market prices will go up, in the free software example this does not happen.
I don't see the logic.
The point is to efficiently utilise resources in providing goods and services to the consumer, not to protect the capitalist. The profit is an incentive to the capitalist to provide things the consumer wants. If the consumer can get those things from elsewhere for less cost, or no cost, then they will and the capitalist loses but that's okay because it's the consumer that the system is intended to benefit (and we're all consumers, though not necessarily of this particular product).
Dumping is only a problem because it allows someone to distort the market in the short term against the interests of the consumer in the long run. Free software does not do this, the consumer gets software that they are happy with for the price, if they are willing to pay more for something better then they can do so, if they are not then they've got what they want.
There is no difference between this and if the rival software was being sold at a much lower price than yours but on a long term sustainable basis.
If consumers would rather have the competing software for nothing than your software at the price you are charging for it then you will go out of business. This is a unfortunate for you personally but it is exactly the outcome that the market is supposed to produce.
The best software agreement I ever read (from back in the BBS days) contained the following:
This opinion is meant for educational purposes only. Any resemblance
to real persons, living or dead is purley coincidental. Void where
prohibited. Some assembly required. List each check separately by
bank number. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or
implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy
equipment. Postage will be paid by addressee. Subject to CAB
approval. This is not an offer to sell securities. Apply only to
affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. Do not stamp.
Use other side for additional listings. For recreational use only.
Do not disturb. All models over 18 years of age. If condition
persists, consult your physician. No user-serviceable parts inside.
Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without
notice. Times approximate. Simulated picture. No postage necessary
if mailed in the United States. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance
of agreement. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. One size fits
all. Many suitcases look alike. Contains a substaintial amount of
non-tobacco ingredients. Colors may, in time, fade. We have sent
the forms which seem to be right for you. Slippery when wet. For
in any mailbox. Edited for television. Keep cool; process promptly.
Post office will not deliver without postage. List was current at
time of printing. Return to sender, no forwarding order on file,
unable to forward. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental
or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure
to perform. At participating locations only. Not the Beatles.
Penalty for private use. See label for sequence. Substantial
penalty for early withdrawal. Do not write below this line. Falling
rock. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Your cancelled check is your
recipt. Add toner. Place stamp here. Avoid contact with skin.
Sanitized for your protection. Be sure each item is properly
endorsed. Sign here without admitting guilt. Slightly higher west
of the Mississippi. Employees and their families are not eligible.
Beware of dog. Contestants have been briefed on some questions
before the show. Limited time offer, call now to insure prompt
delivery. You must be present to win. No passes accepted for this
engagement. No purchase necessary. Processed at location stamped in
code at top of carton. Shading within a garment may occur. Use only
in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Replace with
same type. Approved for veterans. Booths for two or more. Check
here if tax deductible. Some equipment shown is optional. Price
does not include taxes. No Canadian coins. Not recommended for
children. Prerecorded for this time zone. Reproduction strictly
prohibited. No solicitors. No alcohol, dogs, or horses. No
anchovies unless otherwise specified. Restaurant package, not for
resale. List at least two alternate dates. First pull up, then pull
down. Call toll free before digging. Driver does not carry cash.
Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for
identification purposes only. Record additional transactions on back
of previous stub.
This supersedes all previous notices.
Some lawyers have argued that, as the copyright act provides no method for explicitly placing a work into the public domain, that words to that effect have no effect. Obviously, at the copyright infringement trial, you'd have a hard time arguing that you intended to enforce any copy rights if you claimed that your work was in the public domain.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Actually, it *is* dumping when a company does it. The purpose of it is to remove vendors of proprietary works, in order to avoid having to compete with them, at least when a company does it. Will Ximian be able to charge monopoly prices for their services when they put Microsoft out of business? Possibly. There's a lot of money to be made from .NET. If Ximian can provide those services, they will experience nearly unlimited growth.
-russ
p.s. and yes Microsoft does it too, and no, I don't agree with the author of the parent of the parent of this article.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I'm the vice president of OSI, and as far as I am concerned, free software and open source are synonymous. Now, RMS (whose definition of "free software" is accepted by a large number of hackers) has a problem with the APSL because it requires publication of source even if binaries are not distributed. He says that people using "free software" have a right to privacy also. Well, I disagree that a free software license must also not deny privacy rights. I have made the case that this requirement increases the amount of free software. RMS says "not at the cost of privacy". But practically, the only privacy it infringes is that of a corporation which "deploys" software only to its employees. Well, what kind of privacy is that!
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I agree... since when did open source mean GPL or GPL compatible? I think it is great that other companies are working out open source licenses that suit their business needs. The big concern for me is making sure that the licenses are such that you can use libraries that are under other licenses.
Which my "ideal" open source'ish license goes basically like this:
- Source code available but no ability to redistribute for N months
- A given revision of source code becomes Public Domain after N months
This way I get control over my open source project as long as I'm actively developing it with features people want. If the project dies (as is common), the source code becomes Public Domain so anyone wishing to take it over can put it under any license they want (including making modifications proprietary).
Brian Macy
"Where it gets weird is that IIRC Stallman doesn't believe in legally defined intellectual property at all."
The genious of stallman was to turn the concept of intellectual property back on itself. He truly does believe that all software should be in the public domain and no soaftware should be hidden from anyone. He of course realized that this goal might take generations to achieve. In the mean time he invented the concept of a copyleft and the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure a huge codebase can never be hidden from the public and he put in the viral clause to make sure the this pool of software could grow. Until IP laws are abolished he has a tool to fight it. Once the IP laws are gone so is the utility of the GPL. Of course since the GPL is dependent on IP laws it will not disappear until IP does.
It's just freaking brilliant. He says in effect "Hi I have just planted this big ugly onorous anti-business GPL in your midst, I have made sure it will grow till it gets in your way, all you have to do to make it go away is to take away my right to own my own code". Of course once his right to own code goes away so does everybody elses.
War is necrophilia.
"1.Its free, you can't charge for it, but you can charge for distribution, just so long as you don't charge for the code itself. "
Why do you want this? Surely if everyone competes to offer access to the code, the price will be reasonable anyway. Other than that, just use the GPL and trademark the name... No big deal.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
23 of em.... and all of them have something wrong with all of them.... its sort of like governments.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Now that IBM has it's own license
e x.htm. (That's the personal time guidelines).
IBM has had the IBM Public Licnese for quite a while.
I wonder as an IBM employee if the ideas I create as such are my own, or still belong to ibm.
No, everything you do belongs to IBM. If you want to contribute to an OSS project during IBM's time, you must get approval (very specific approval!) from IBM's OSSC (Open Source Steering Committee). Their approval generally takes 2-4 months, from my experience. The approval includes a excruciatingly detailed form describing the project, why you are modifying it, exactly what files you are modifiying, the dates (start and end) that you will be working on it, and your local lawyer's assessment of any associated IP risk. If you decide to work on any other file in the project, or past the 'expire' date, you must go through the process for approval again.
If you want to get approval to work on OSS projects on your own time, you must get an unspecified manager's approval for each project (sometimes, each part of each project). And the manager may deny approval. If they do give you approval, it ususally takes around 1 month, or they pass it to a higher level manager.
Also you have to follow specific guidlines set forth by IBM's LTC (Linux Technology Center) about how to contribute to an OSS project. If you're on the IBM intranet, it's http://ltc.linux.ibm.com/open_source/prz2html/ind
As I understand it, one of the main differences is that the IBM Public License could only apply to files that were originally created by IBM, while the Common Public License would allow non-IBM employees to contribute new files to a project and apply the Common Public License to those files.
Also, you can start a new project and license it under the CPL. With the IPL, the 'Original Contributor' had to be IBM, so any projects started outside IBM could not be licensed under the IPL (without giving your project to IBM).
The CPL changes this; it does not make the assumption that the 'Original Contributor' is IBM.
The metamods will get him. If you created an account you could metamod yourself (and you would always be free to click the "Post Anonymously" button if you wanted to remain an AC).
How we know is more important than what we know.
Brings a tear to my eye. Seriously, this is fantastic, and I'm not just saying that because I haven't heard a useful contribution from an AC in so long :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
quote your source please.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Why is it that someone who sums it up so neatly is more often than not rated as "Flamebait?" Who would try to flame that? You cant argue with it. It is a perfect sentiment. Step off.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I dont think RMS knows what a washing machine is :) I see your point.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Please, if I'm missing a crucial factor here hit me with it, but I'm after specific non-redundant replies, not flames.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The development library was Crystal Space and that was a lot longer ago than "a few months back". My mother wouldn't know what a "console" is either and even my brother (who actually does play games) would look at me strangely if I used the word "console". If you want to understand RMS's opinion on libraries you should read the warning on the LGPL.
How we know is more important than what we know.
read the transcript (or listen to the oog) of this story in the yro section. He seems pretty in touch with reality to me. He just doesn't care about games. If someone started talking to me about graphics programs and refered to some aliasing algorithm, I wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about and I wouldn't consider it valid for them to say I was out of touch with reality. Out of touch with graphics programming maybe, but I dont think graphics programming is such an important part of life that I just must know things about it and obviously RMS doesn't think gaming is such an important part of life. Does this make him out of touch? Yer, maybe, about as much as my dad is out of touch. Hardly a reason to forsake someone's opinion.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What happens?
Helix Code goes out of business, because they cannot compete with the still no-money download from gnome.org, a different distribution.
Or suppoose the entire Gnome group, everyone working on it, decides to, God forbid, release the next version with a MS like lisence and charge great gobs of cash for it.
Well, my copy of Gnome 1.4 was lisenced to me under the GPL/LGPL...this would be a most opportune time for a fork. And fork it would. GnuevoGnome (or some such) would then rise to take the place of the now proprietary GnoGnome...or, then too, there's always KDE.
Point is, Helix et al would not last a minute if they tried to do something like that (not that I'm saying they would...nonononono; it's an example). This holds true of any software package that started life as free software
So, no, it's not dumping, because there would be no real opportunity to profit from it; I think those involved know this.
Now, providing service (via .NET)...that's something very different. Now we've moved beyond the realm of simply writing and distributing software via the "normal" channels...I don't want to even touch this subject just yet...
This code is published under the "Don't Even Talk to Me about Java" license.
You may use this code in any way you like, but if you use it in a commercial application, you must acknowledge that I wrote it.
You may translate this code into Python, Lisp, Smalltalk, TOM, or even PL/1 with Swahili keywords, and I'll probably even encourage you to do so.
If, however, you contact me for help porting this code to Java, I will send a goon squad to beat you about the head and shoulders with a copy of "The Mythical Man-Month" and/or "Anti-Patterns".
By communicating to me any intention on your part of porting my code to Java, you agree to the aforementioned beating, you promise to submit to surgery to ensure your sterility, and further agree to waive all right to refute my public declaration of your uselessness.
You have been warned.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Congratulations. I hope you'll permit me the right to control my code the way that I want to. And if I want to release my code under the terms that you're allowed to use it if and only if you don't proprietize it, what's wrong with that?
I get a kick out of people who proclaim that anyone who uses GPL or believes the tenets of the GPL is somehow restricting other people's rights. My use of the GPL does not prevent you from using any license on your software, or releasing it to the public domain. But because I prevent you from using my software under conditions that I don't approve of, you think I'm the zealot? You're trying to take my code, use it, and not contribute back. You're trying to take the work of others and proclaim it for yourself. And I'm the one impinging on your rights?
You live in a strange world.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Thanks OSI for telling me exactly what to think! Oh, is IBM's license approved by you now? Then I'll consider it for my next project!
/. or anyone else be your guide.
Please...
People, if you want to release a project, look at all the licenses out there. Don't go GPL because everyone else is doing it. Don't listen to OSI. Don't let anything but the licenses themselves influence your decision. Read them, choose what seems right for your needs.
You want your shit closed, you say? Think it will get you a wad of cash, or get you something else? Do it. Don't let
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
-RMS "The GNU Manifesto"
I'm not going to defend this statement. I agree, it's rather extreme. But I used to ride the Boston subway, and often saw signs to the effect of "here's a number to call if you'd like to turn in any of your coworkers, friends, or family for being software pirates." This is extreme in the other direction, and unfortunately much more prevelant and accepted.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Which part of "I'm not going to defend this statement. I agree, it's rather extreme." don't you understand?
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
maybe what we need is a small set of generic licenses with a set of "plugin" additions that companies can use to then limit the license to their needs. there is a lot of "code" these licenses all have in common with some having only minor differences. plugin clauses and stipulations could then flesh out the simple license.
It's ``He has sandals...''.
HTH!
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.
The first effort to establish a definition to free software was DFSG. As far as I know both RMS and ESR fully agree with DSFG (though OSI definition carries some changes). One calls it "free software" the other "open source". We should call it the way we prefer and not try to extract two different concepts out of them.Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)
We should not let this happen. The term "opensource" would never have been gained acceptance in our community if it was meant to be a synonym for free software. The interest of the community should be greater than the ambition and the narcisism of two individuals (ESR and RMS).
We should not let ESR decide alone what is good or bad in the name of "opensource". Finally a lot of what we do is call "opensource" by people from outside. If OSI accepts licenses that we do not like let us ask for a more representative organ, and not let it decide what it wants in the name of the rest.
Too many people have contributed for free/opensource software. I don't see why we would give two people the liberty to decide what these terms should mean. Free software shouldn't mean software with a license from FSF, or software adhering to the "free software movement started by RMS", or software that RMS likes. Opensource software shouldn't mean OSI approved.
But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free.
No. No licensed software is ever free because it is just that: licensed. You can do whatever you want with it as long as you abide by the terms of the license. The BSD license is not totally free either. There is only one completely free way to release code: public domain. That's it.
The GPL was invented to promote freedom from Intellectual Property and to protect people from money-grubbing corporations who would try and restrict our freedom for their bottom line. It's primary purpose is not absolute freedom, but fairness.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
If you mean "Mac OS X", type Mac OS X.
Let the pork jokes begin...
Well I would have Pork was the obvious complement to Apple source...
.sig
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
Ok, IANAL (always loved the sound of that acronym) (don't you just love it when someone uses an acronym to make things shorter, and then puts in some extra comments about the acronym which would have made not using the acronym at all so much shorter?).
The way I see it, the IBM license is, in spirit, very much like the GPL.
You have the right to:
The only different I see is that you can somewhat change the license on binaries.
One more difference is that they made an heroic attempt to deal with liability, support and patent licensing issues.
Am I misunderstanding something centeral here?
-
-
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
First of all, quicktime is coded in Carbon last time I checked, so that means it's as close to linux compatibility as any other Classic Mac OS 9 application - aka not at all. Second of all, there are plenty of apps that run on linux that don't run on windows. The only difference is that there are usually similiar programs that run on one platform, but not another. So, run out and license some technology and make it only availiable on linux and wait for it to catch on... oh wait, the whole catching on thing doesn't work when only 5% of all computer users can use the program.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Last time I checked they weren't licensed to only run on Linux. They're open sourced, under the GPL, and can be ported to other unixes, etc. My post makes more sense in context of the original post, not just my reply by itself.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
"Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license."
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
23 Licenses!
Hail Eris!
<goes to look for his hot dog, it being friday and all>
-shpoffo
So I have to make extra CD for him or copy the source on to his computer. Don't have a CD-RW not enough room on neighbor HD to fit source. Can't "give" software to neighbor.
;-)
Um, yeah but thats irrelevant though. The license isn't whats restricting you from giving the software to a neighbor. However, almost ALL binary programs have an about or --help feature which makes it quite clear who wrote the program, and how they can be contacted, (and in the case of GPL'd code, where to go to get the source, if you so choose). The fact remains that your neighbor still has the same right to the source code as you do.
Whether or not RMS complains about privacy is also irrelevant, because, well who cares what any one person thinks? It doesn't change what the license says. Just because RMS complains doesn't have anything to do with the Free Software Definition. People all have thier own personal agendas.
I can't comment on the APSL, but the GPL pretty much asks of the same thing. If you're not going to accompany binary programs with the source, you have to make it quite clear where they can get it. How is that different?
Seriously, I've only actually read the GPL a few times, and I sure don't remember all the details of it, so its no surprise to me that others have the same problem. Perhaps if the OSI could post some "official" and correct outlines of each license, we could avoid utterly offtopic posts where everyone tries to sound smart.
I guess I'm doing that myself right now...
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
Oh yeah, my rot13 license is expired. I think I need to renew my ASCII, too.
Thanks for trying so hard to help... and for nullifying any attempt on his part to avoid spam.
You mentioned copyleft but not viral copyleft. I'd suggest the GNU Lesser GPL with an additional disclaimer to the effect: "The GNU Lesser General Public License does not give you any trademark rights in the name ______. However, permission is granted to distribute unmodified copies of the Software under the name ______."
Will I retire or break 10K?
By his OWN definition, what Stallman is pushing is Free Software
One word: Trademark. RMS was the first to use the term in commerce; therefore, he should get to dictate what it means. It's too bad the FSF didn't apply for some sort of trademark on FREE SOFTWARE.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wonder if moores law applies in this situation, ie. every 18 months the number of opensource licenses doubles....
---
boris at darkrock dot co dot uk
chris at darkrock dot co dot uk
http colon slash slash www dot darkrock dot co dot uk
Keep in mind that id have other games. Yes, Quake is under GPL because it's no longer their best toy in the house.
m l
Look here:
http://www.idsoftware.com/archives/quake3arc.ht
For example, they release game code of Quake3 to make sure that it's possible to modify as much as possible the gameplay, but they keep the 3D engine closed. The game code of Quake3 isn't GPL. I have no idea on which license they released it, but there must be something to prevent anyone to sell a game based on Quake 3 code without paying $300,000.
I think it's great the way they do it. I'm not complaining, but I would like to see Commander Keen source code!
Mathieu Pinard
Tribsoft Inc.
Mathieu Pinard
Tribsoft Inc.
Let the pork jokes begin...
I don't think any of those licenses have the combination of restrictions you have. GPL is close, except for the "cannot release code under the same name". But you could easily just say "This code is released under the terms of the GPL, with the additional restriction that any modified versions must be released under a different name.
Also, when you refer to "code", are you talking about executables, object code, or source code (or all of the above)? GPL says nothing about what people can charge for the binaries, but requires that source code be made available at no additional charge to anyone to whom you distribute binaries.
-- Kris
Nor can you take GPL'd software and combine it with other "free" but non-GPL'd software. The FSF is not about promoting free software, it's about promoting GPL software.
Yeah, right. How do you explain the EGCS-GCC code fork. The Emacs-Xemacs code fork. The Bison-Byacc code fork (GNU people took BSD Yacc, GPLed it and forked it), GNU indent (same story)?
Why DO you have to balance a company wanting to make money and the community? GNU/Linux & BSD was created by the community for the community not for company this or that. So if companies want to release software under non-GPL licenses being OSI approved or closed source, well nothing is stoping them since all the basic and important libraries are LGPL or BSD. But there is no need for the community applauding their actions. The community uses (L)GPL and BSD licenses and these companies can use whatever license they wish. They just have to realize that by using other licenses they make their code mostly uninteresting to the community and minimalize the chance of community involvement.
I would have to agree. Unless I'm trying to make a profit off it, I release all my new software in the public domain. "Here you go, I don't care what you do with it, I'm writing this for my own knowledge and to better the software world, not to push some agenda."
23 licenses to choose from? further proof that the open source movement is nothing but a front for those anarchist, anti-American Discordian bastards.
PS---this is not a troll. It is an ogre.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
The "free" in Stallman's "free software" refers to the software, not to the people that interact with it. The GPL is designed to keep the software free at all times, in both its source and binary forms, while restricting some of it's user's rights, so it doesn't contradict with the "free software" term.
Now, whether that is right or wrong is a totally different discussion... all too often heard around here. My take is that any license is ok as long as it's not shoved down my throat, I am given a real chance to understand it and after that I can choose to accept it or not.
Anyone can offer you stuff under his terms, there's nothing devious about it; you don't like his terms, don't take his stuff.
Has anyone got a spare .sig ?
Tuff that Smatters.
Not decided on the issue, but leaning towards the LGPL.
Winton
care about your puny little freedom to
restrict what people do with code you distribute,
he cares about everyone else's freedom to
modify and distribute it.
In the words of Kirk and Spock, the needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Letting other's use your code is the price you
pay for getting to use everyone else's. Is
this not a fair deal?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
It depends on your starting point.
In the current world, with government-defined and -enforced intellectual property, the GPL adds to your rights. You start out with no right to copy, and are licensed the write to copy and modify and distribute, while retaining the same license. Pretty much any other license increases your freedom as well, no matter how restricted it is, because you start out with no rights to the software. A 'restrictive' license can only be deemed such in comparison with less reestrictive licenses.
Where it gets weird is that IIRC Stallman doesn't believe in legally defined intellectual property at all. Meaning that his ideal world has nothing but public domain software. And in that world, one could take someone else's free source and sell modified binaries and keep those modifications private, just like everyone's fear about BSD or public domain code. Compared to that world, the GPL is restrictive. One could wonder if Stallman's position is coherent, but I don't feel like re-reading his essays to check for sure, so I'll leave that debate to others.
But I suspect that a lot of people who object to the GPL agree, either consciously or unconsciously, that the world should be like that public domain world -- or like a BSD world, where authors have to be acknowledged. There you are, working on a BSD kernel, and want to copy a Linux device driver, and are foiled again by the GPL, and you imagine the Ideal World, where any information out there could be copied at will -- well, then, the GPL will seem damn restrictive. And the BSD people don't want to switch to GPL because they feel they're closer to the Ideal (and because they can't, in the case of something like the NetBSD kernel -- too many accreted licenses.)
Of course, if I'm right, people like this really should be releasing into the public domain, and not burdening others with hauling authorship information around.
Not having released any programs myself, I don't know what I'd do. I've imagined using public domain, to be consistent. My imagination informs me it would take some effort to buck the trend.
This is like saying, "Voting should be about rating the quality of the candidate, not the content of the candidate." As if the content - what the candidate actually intends to do - were somehow less important that 'quality' - a nice public persona. Crap, if quality can be separated from content, then as they say in our quality-impaired media, "Content is king" - or should be. It's not how you do it, it's what you do, Ohio Players to the contrary. If the content is that the poster slanders Stallman, we shouldn't vote it up for how sweetly the poster honies his tongue, or not (in this case not).
If you want quality without content (or at least with content hidden, cover every dish with Cool Whip!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Is someone trying to say something by linking to the Ontario Swine Institute (osi.org)?
be it 23 or 2300, developers will use the license that makes the most sense to them AND lets them work with the people they want to, so I really don't see many of these licenses lasting for the long term. Watch them fade into obscurity.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Oh yes I can - if the theatre is on fire!
sulli
RTFJ.
finding out where all the links go to in these articles?
:o)
sorry, couldnt resist... there are sooooo many links in this one, i got confused
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer J. Simpson
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code.
If you wrote the code, you can do anything you want with it. So your first premise is false.
If you didn't write the code, of course you can't do whatever you want with it. Duh. (If I invited you to dinner, would you complain if you couldn't keep my plates?)
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
I think RMS is just a little out of touch today anyway. He takes too much credit for himself, makes sure to put his ego first. Yeah, he's made good contributions, but it's not 1970 anymore. He's too unyeilding, and that never leads to success. I agree 23 licenses are a bit much, but you DO have to balance a company wanting to make money with open source work, and the community. I'm surprised someone hasn't lambasted id/Carmack for releasing the code to their games, and yet not making it Free. Sometimes Free is better than Open, and sometimes Open is better than Free.
--
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
At the moment, the links I see for both GPL and BSD point to the /. front page. It sure seems like these Perl hackers have a hard time with HTML...
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
Capitalism is idealism. It's an ideology not some law of nature. In fact, if Capitalism were a natural scientific hypothesis it would have never made into a theory, because its predictions have been proven empirically wrong over and over again.
But back to your problem. What would you suggest, then? That free distribution of software should not be allowed if it infringes someone's "Right to Make Money"? Wake up. There's no such right.
... is that the sole reason that the GPL exists is that copyrights exist. Copyrights have been used as a bludgeon by companies with an opportunistic bent (MS anyone?) in order to stifle innovation, to stop public discourse, to take something from the public domain, change a few elements, and rerelease it as proprietary (MS, er, Disney?).
It's this last thing that's the most irksome and is why a lot of people get bent out of shape when someone equates open source with free (GPL) source... If you don't think its a problem, just look at the whole Gracenote debacle for an example!
Those who argue that "Without copyright (or IP), your precious GPL wouldn't exist!" are missing the point. If there was no copyright (or IP), there would be no need for the GPL...
-- Shamus
This space for rent. EZ terms!
Lets face it. People that like the BSD license think that the GPL is too restrictive. People who like the GPL think the APSL is too restrictive. Not everyone will agree that a certain license is that best and applicable to everything. It all depends on how you want your source code controlled.
karma is for the weak >)
sorry, I mean OSX, I've got too many acronyms in my head.
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
First of all, I really doubt the actual quicktime engine/algorithms makes many api calls to the OS, whether its carbon/coco/whatever. If it did it probably couldnt be called "quicktime". I also am pretty sure that it existed before the carbon standard. Second of all, I was refering to killer apps, not the mountain of useful but sometimes hobby quality unix apps. Third of all, I was posing a question for a debate, I didnt want to make you angry, very sorry about that. Although you did reinforce my antagonistic argument by saying
/. to http://www.kuro5hin.org/
"oh wait, the whole catching on thing doesn't work when only 5% of all computer users can use the program." My argument was- what if opensource (for lack of better term) was more guarded with its license, would it still be such an underdog
And thank you for finally making it clear to me that much of the intelligent debate about "stuff that matters" has been ported from
Oh, and sorry for the maXOS think, I of course meant OSX, I've got too many acronyms to remember and I think some of them are starting to share the same storage in my brain.
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
See the Free World License -- denounced by RMS, even though he approves of its goals! But unfortunately it's a click-through license, which RMS prefers to avoid.
Is there anything like that out there? I wouldn't say my licence is restrictive, just avoids some potential headaches.
Can anyone advise?
--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Give the guy a break. He's trying to make a living. Don't any of the rest of us have real jobs? Of course we do. I've used a lot of open source/GPL'ed stuff at work that was inferior to commercial products because it was free. He's got a point. And even if you disagree with his point, it doesn't mean you have to villify him. Geez. Are we that immature?
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Just like there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own CLOSED SOURCE license--for that matter for writing different licenses PER SALE.
The company I work for had to run a license/contract through our legal department a couple of times recently to figure just WHAT we had bought the rights to use/distribute for a certain closed source library. The funny thing was that the company that we bought it from was unclear as well, as it seems that we had negotiated (way back when) very different terms than anything that they typically do for other customers.
Bottom line is that building systems on top of other systems can get complicated for both technical and business reasons.
--Ken
This is exactly the point, though. Stallman calls his software 'free', but as you well point out, it comes with a price tag. I am not arguing whether or not it this price tag is reasonable - I agree that if you give me something, you should be able to attach any conditions you wish to it.
But I don't think you should be calling that something 'free'. My objection is simply that because GPL'ed software comes with a price, it cannot be free. Stallman can call it what he likes, and so can you, but just because you call something a rose does not mean it is one. Just because he coined the term 'free software' does not mean it is a reasonable use of the term and does not mean it isn't extremely misleading. If I gave you software but made you post any changes you made to code you distribute on a specific website, would that software be free ? If I gave you source code and allowed you to distribute it yourself provided you paid me 10 dollars, or put advertising information in derivative source, would that software be free ?
Maybe the FSF should be called the Conditionally Free Software Foundation instead.
It's good to see some variety in OSS licenses, although there needs to be somewhat more stringent standards in defining exactly what Open Source is. I'm just waiting for there to appear on the scene, the 'Microsoft Open Source License'
Everything microsoft sells under it's developer license is actually Open Source right? Sure... But that's OK because we all know that (in the bill gates universe) Open Source is Bad. But in all seriousness, the BSD license is more 'free' and less 'Open Source' than the GPL. It is far more conducive to centralized corporate development of a product where the company seeks to solicit the 'assistance' of the OSS comunity. One of the nice things about the GPL is that it's stringent requirements for distribution, have the effect of reducing code forking (which whas one of the big MS objections to OSS) by forcing a closer colaboration of the developmwnt comunity. Part of the beauty of the GPL is that it is as much a social contract as a legal one. It's legal provisions foster comunity growth, through it's code distribution and attribution requirements.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
So what? Just because it may violate the law it actually restricts my freedom? In fact, it just prohibits you from getting a GPL'ed code, adding some more lines of code and then closing the source, like many people would *LOVE* to do. Doesn't the guy that made the code FREE have any reason to prevent you from doing that?
- -----
The law isn't perfect and it will never be. As a lawyer, you should know about that.
------------------------------------------
You think Bill Gates is evil?
Because you can get other people's code, but you have to give them something back. If you patent a software, you'll be able to make everyone think your code is free, and after some time you sue everyone using your software for patent infringement.-
-----------------------------------------------
You think Bill Gates is evil?
There are 34 licences listed as being free, although the FSF encourages you not to use a handful of them because of perceived flaws (such as the original BSD licence which had the "advertising clause") The licences specifically discouraged are the NPL, IPL, NOSL, LPPL, OpenLDAP, original BSD licence and derivitives like the Apache 1.0 and 1.1 licences.
That still leaves more than 23 Free licences to choose from!
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You failed politics 101, didn't you ? :-)
In theory, the citizens of democratic countries decide where the line is drawn. This is typically done through elected representatives (the legislature). The justice system role is to interpret those laws and determine sanctions (still according to the limits fixed by the legislature). The executive system (what most people refer to as "government") can, among other roles, ask the legislature to prepare new laws and has to provide means for the justice to do its job (by catching criminals and applying the sanctions). Thankfully governments do not get to draw the line and enforce it. This is a good recipe for a dictature. The practice may be a bit more complex obviously.
ob. RMS: is he acting like a dictator in handling the GPL and the surrounding FSF propaganda ? I have my answer, I'll let you decide for yourself.
BTW I love emacs (gcc a lot less). Respecting RMS coding abilities (and shortcomings) should not lead to believing his rhetoric. In the same way that I can respect ESR technical contributions despite his (insert a derogatory adjective) political positions.
Just more stuff to argue over. This is good for bringing money into opensource though. Thanks for accepting IBM and apple. cool. blah
samrolken
Has the dirty hippie spoken yet?
The copyright owner can ALWAYS grant exceptions. Wanna sell a closed version? As long as you hold the license to the entire codebase, you can.
--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
At first I thought this was just a simple acronym mix-up, but upon further analysis, I realized it was much d eeper than that. If you check out the FAQ, the OSI is commited to helping improve Ontario's pigs in an open manner. For example, they're all about sharing source material, as especially noted in their pricing strategy -- they charge you extra if you're not sharing your source material!
In fact, they even provide some how-to in their FAQs
Of course, this project is merely Open, since the material can never be truly Free. They would like to be Free, but apparently their product relies on IP from an external source, and they just can't get their vendor to agree to the terms of the GPL. Something about "thou shalt not lie with a beast" or some such.
There are rumors He's open to petitions though.
I guess, by your reasoning, that since I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, I don't have freedom of speech.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
That's called "competition in a free market".
Deal with it.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Where are you... 1980s Soviet Union?
My competitors do not compete on equal terms.
Nobody ever competes on equal terms. I'm stronger than you, therefore I'll win the bench press competition. I'm smarter than you, therefore I'm going to get higher grades on the exam.
This is life. Not all are equal.
They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation.
Sounds like they've figured something out that you didn't. Too bad.
It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.
Gee, that's too bad. Such is the free market: if you can't compete, you go out of business.
I cannot see how this is a good thing,
If you cannot see how lower prices + superior products are a good thing, then you need to brush up on some basic economics.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
"Dumping" is carried out by companies and countries that want to temporarily undercut prices so that they can later have a monopoly position in the market and charge more for their own products. Free software may end up taking over a market by being cheaper, but by its nature, nobody can charge monopoly prices for it--it is and remains free. Furthermore, the users of free software pay for it, directly and efficiently, in their own contributions, avoiding the overhead of commercial software development and corporations. We call that "competition", not "dumping".
Microsoft, on the other hand, has engaged in something one might call "dumping": they have temporarily undercut competitors, swallowed the losses temporarily, and later (effectively) raised prices on their products.
It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.
And that's the way it should be. Once the development costs of a piece of software have been amortized, it costs nothing to make an additional copy. In an efficient market, the price of software should therefore go to zero. Open source software is simply one of several means by which that happens.
The fact that Microsoft and a few other players continue to make big bucks with old technology is an indication that either they aren't selling software (maybe they are selling services or something less tangible like membership in a "user community"), or that they are engaging in monopolistic practices.
Then everyone has to rely on freely developed software, without support or someone interested in the "customers".
Providing support for free software costs money, and that's why it isn't free. That's also why it is a great opportunity for consulting and for making money.
The enemies of the free market are people like you, not free software. You have unreasonable expectations of the big bucks you can make with software development, and you expect the government to protect you from cheap competition. Well, things fortunately don't work that way. Get used to it, and maybe find a more profitable market niche.
What are you complaining about? When you get GPL'ed software, you get good software, its source code, and a limited redistribution license. That's a great deal better than you get with most commercial software; Microsoft, for example, doesn't even let you redistribute their software, let alone modify its source, even though you paid them for it.
Maybe the GPL license doesn't fit your needs. In that case, you can exercise your own choice: don't use the GPL'ed code. Nobody is forcing you. If you like, you can even create your own, proprietary implementation of a GPL'ed library, an option you generally don't have with closed source software.
public domain = anyone can do anything with the stuff. no ownership. no rights. no protections. no warrantees. no responsibility. no restrictions. this is what "free" means: no strings attached.
Free Software with conditions isn't free under any definition of the word "free." Free means I can take the code and embed it into my $1.5m project, stamp my name on it and resell it, or whatever. Anything less isn't free, by definition. Amusing that the Free Software Foundation doesn't actually promote Free Software, it promotes zero-cost software.
If you want your code to be free, stuff it into the public domain! Let it wander off into the distance, with no hope of renumeration in the future.
Just don't call something free when it isn't.
Which perhaps explains why they call it a "license".
In essense, a license is a waiver of prosecution. Essentially a binding statement "although what you are doing is a crime, we won't bother you about it." For example, driving a car on a public road is, by default, a criminal act, but your license makes you an exception to the rule.
The term "license agreement" has come to mean a contract granting some license, usually to copy software. To call it simply a "license" is misleading.
In particular, the so-called "General Public License" is a full-fledged contract (in theory... it may yet prove legally invalid), placing an eternal obligation on you to provide matching source code to any and all users to whom you distribute object code.
In contrast, a statement like "all are permitted to redistribute this work, in original or modified form, so long as they do not remove this notice, including the copyright notice and disclaimer" is a true public license. If someone removes the notice and redistributes it, they aren't breaking a contract, but doing something prohibited by default which they don't have permission for. There are no obligations imposed upon the distributor, it is just that the permission granted him is limited.
If the GPL was a license, it wouldn't be so restrictive. So let's not start saying licenses are restrictive by definition.
(IANAL,IAABT)
--
People don't become maniacs simply by having ideas about property rights that differ from yours.
...no, only by making a lifelong crusade of it, using the term "The Great Satan" to refer to people who have ideas about property rights that differ from his, and writing terrible songs about it.
"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."
-RMS "The GNU Manifesto"
BTW, I release my code into the public domain. Many programmers have been fed a lot of lies about liability and told things like "if you don't GPL it, proprietary companies can take it for themselves," without really thinking about what things like that mean. GPL is just the default by sheer publicity, no other license (much less the public domain) has a dedicated cadre of propagandists working for it.
--
Lawyers can be as bad as anyone else at using misleading abbreviations. They also write loads of unenforceable and inaccurate stuff into most contracts. Clarity, you see, is not the lawyer's friend. Their entire profession is based on the difficulty of interpreting unclear language.
The GPL is quite clearly a licensing agreement, a contract offer (and later, a contract) that must be accepted whole, putting one who accepts it under permanent obligation, before any permission is granted. Not a license, simply giving permission in a way that precludes legal action for acting on that permission. Not a public license, simply extending such permission to every member of the public.
A contract offer is by no means a license, and people should stop calling it one. To accept this recent near-antonymic abbreviation is to further muddy the already opaque waters of legal speech.
But I suppose Profit is Loss, Restriction is Permission, and Obligation is Freedom in the brave GNU/world.
--
You live in a Free Country. But you are not free to steal; you are not free to shoot your boss or rape his wife.
/you/ who needs to get a grip of matters pertaining to GPL.
Freedom has to be defined in a context of "fairness". Your freedom to do as please is tolerated only so far it does not encroach on another person's freedom. Governments draw the line, and enforce it.
The analogy to Free Software should be obvious. RMS is doing the job of drawing the line. He is my hero for it.
I think it is
I don't think it's good that the FSF insists on having the ultimate definition of free software. IMHO, the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL: The BSD license leaves you more freedom in what to do with the source, ie you may combine it with code that underlies a different license and release it without the source. The GPL doesn't allow you to do that, and therefore is IMHO less free.
--
This is not a free market. My competitors do not compete on equal terms. They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation. It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market. Then everyone has to rely on freely developed software, without support or someone interested in the "customers".
This is sabotage, and I believe that it is illegal to dump prices to eliminate competitors. That is in effect what is happening. I cannot see how this is a good thing, other than for highschool and college kids who want everything for free. :-(
Now that IBM has it's own license, I wonder as an IBM employee if the ideas I create as such are my own, or still belong to ibm. And if they still belong to ibm, can i just get hold of my source and re-distribute it as my own?? hmm...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Interesting I submitted a ask slashdot asking the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" and it was rejected.
Anyway the GPL is not Free it even breaks the Free Software Definition.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Can I go to my neighbor and with a install cd and install linux on his computer? Well I also have to do one of the following
I have to also have to do one of the following
So I have to make extra CD for him or copy the source on to his computer.
Don't have a CD-RW not enough room on neighbor HD to fit source. Can't "give" software to neighbor.
I am going through the APSL and RMS say this about it.
any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published.
I can't find where in the license it says this. Even if it does so what? RMS complains about privacy, but the Free Software Definition says nothing about privacy
On deploying execute only code the APSL says this.
if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code.
That's seems alot more free then the GPL.
What we have 23 choices? Oh no we all know how much the FSF hates choice
Just great... The day that I finish writing HelloWorld.java version 1.07.3, I find 23 different licenses I can publish it under... How will I ever decide?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I personally don't question the man's genius. I love Emacs, and anyone who can write a compiler (particularly one as good as gcc) is a hacker's hacker as far as I'm concerned.
But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
I love free software; I love the quality of it. I deeply appreciate the time that the authors of it have invested. But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT. It is not an obligation. It is not more ethical than proprietary software (note that this is absolutely different from the business practices of companies and individuals, which can be positively immoral). That is not where its superiority lies. The superiority is in the code.
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous. What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software. Of course, a software author has the right to release his code (if he does so at all) under whatever terms he wishes. But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free. It is "mostly" free (yes, I can distinguish between free beer and free speech). I can't do just anything I wish with it.
Stallman needs to get a grip. If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts, he would be a lot more tolerable. As it is, he can be a royal pain.
Nevertheless, he is a genius.
A lot of people are talking about it as if all the OSI-opproved licenses were there to replace GPL. I don't think this is their intention. Apple does not expect you to write something completely new and release it under their licence. Rather, Apple is releasing some code and they want to have some special rights to any derived work. (Specifically, the want to be able to "to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify or have modified (for Apple and/or its subsidiaries), sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, in any form, through multiple tiers of distribution" - without the limitations of the license, which would apply to any third-parties using your modifications).