Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSI Approves Apple, IBM Licenses

Posted by timothy on from the they're-like-tribbles dept.

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.

19 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. More anti-Stallman BS... by slothbait · · Score: 4

    > 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

    1. Re:More anti-Stallman BS... by FallLine · · Score: 3
      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.
      Clearly he doesn't physically strip anyone of their rights. However, it's reasonably clear from his numerous past statements that he has absolutely no respect for anything other than his tunnel-vision view of "free" software. What's more, I don't think it's terribly unfair to call RMS a zealot that would strip them of their rights to be non-free if it were in his power.

      As far as the GPL itself goes, the GPL does, as a matter of fact, put certain burdens on consumers of GPL source code that do not exist in other licenses and schemes. Now you can call that "less positive", or anything you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it does impinge on my right to take GPL source code, modify it, and do whatever I want with it. However, that is not to say that RMS and others should not be entitled to do so. Quite the contrary, the same exact argument can, and should, be made for proprietary software. The producers/coders/developers of the product make it, they should be free to do whatever they want with their code, even if that means imposing certain legal fictions, because, when you boil the issue it down to its fundamental, it's just an option, not something that is imposed on you. Options are a good thing, so long as they don't fundamentally TAKE from others.

      I suppose the fundamental difference between Stallman and some other people, is that Stallman basically takes the approach that the mere existing of anything other than his approach is harmful and evil, whereas others are far more permissive of other approaches. I, for instance, think we are better off having options. If you want software that is "free" you can have it. If you want software that does what you, as the consumer, want, you can have that too, most likely it'll come from propreitary software. By and large, the two co-exist and put little burden on each other. They fill seperate needs. They are largely developed differently. They don't generally compete for the same resources. If anything, their relationship is more symbiotic, the existence of the other bolsters their unique strengths. Let the better option prevail, this is the true spirit of capitalism.
    2. Re:More anti-Stallman BS... by macpeep · · Score: 4

      Neither should they moderate the parent down. The parent post was a very good one. You may or may not disagree with the views of the writer but that's not a base for moderation. Moderation is about rating the quality of the post, not the content of the post.

    3. Re:More anti-Stallman BS... by Dwonis · · Score: 3
      Exactly. The GPL was even geared to a different audience than the BSDL. Not a many years ago, most "freeware" authors hid their source code and forbade any kind of commercial exploitation of their software. They would certainly never place their work in the public domain (or use the BSDL), because they were deathly afraid that Microsoft et al. would make tons of money from their program.

      The GPL was geared more-or-less toward these people, and because of the GPL, these people are now free software / open source developers, and these people felt pretty generous.

      The idea behind the GPL is "I've been generous by giving you this code, and I expect the same level of generosity from you."

      I really wish these GPL vs BSDL/PD wars would end. People involved in them usually believe that all OSS developers have the samegoals and interests, which is clearly false. There are legitimate reasons to use either of the BSDL/PD and the GPL, and I wish people from both camps would accept that.
      ------

    4. Re:More anti-Stallman BS... by dimator · · Score: 3

      The moderation is supposed to be related to how much the post contributes to the topic

      You mean how much the post reinforces the most common ideas here on slashdot, so we can all proceed to kiss our own asses, instead of stating an opinion which might be self-generated and against the status-quo?

      I dont think openly insulting someone contributes anything.

      "Nevertheless, he is a genius."

      I wish more people would insult me that way.


      --

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  2. Re:On Stallman by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5
    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.

    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:

    I, Joe Developer, hereby release this software into the public domain.

    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.
  3. As far as I am concerned, they are synonymous. by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3

    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
  4. Open Source != Free by Ghoser777 · · Score: 5

    "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."
  5. Pigs? by kstantfw · · Score: 4

    Is someone trying to say something by linking to the Ontario Swine Institute (osi.org)?

  6. License Darwinism... by TheOutlawTorn · · Score: 3

    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
  7. troll links by Segfault+11 · · Score: 5

    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

  8. Is there a licence that says this? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 3
    I'd like to release my code under a specific licence. Does any of the current ones say this?

    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.
    2. If it all screws up, its not my fault. Blame someone else
    3. You're welcome to hack it about and redistributed it as you see fit but:
      1. You must release the code under the same licence as this
      2. You cannot release the code under the same name (as it won't be my "official" release) and I don't want to deal with people going "x v1.55 doesn't work!" when i'm only on 1.22 myself.
    4. No warranty etc. etc.

    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.
  9. Re:Too many choices by squiggleslash · · Score: 3
    Funny. The FSF have an evaluation of different software licences here.

    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.
  10. Ontario Swine Improvement as an Open Organization by __aaahtg7394 · · Score: 5
    In the original version of this story(hopefully fixed by now), Timothy had a link to the Ontario Swine Improvement site, instead of the Open Source Initiative's site.

    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.

  11. Re:On Stallman by ryants · · Score: 3
    I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous.
    1. No freedom is absolute. You have freedom of speech, yet cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
    2. The "restrictions" are there to promote the GPL. That's the whole point.

    Ryan T. Sammartino

    --

    Ryan T. Sammartino
    "Ancora imparo"

  12. Re:Illegal by ryants · · Score: 3
    This is not a free market.

    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"

  13. Re:On Stallman by valrama · · Score: 3

    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.

    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 /you/ who needs to get a grip of matters pertaining to GPL.

  14. Too many choices by Tachys · · Score: 3

    What we have 23 choices? Oh no we all know how much the FSF hates choice

  15. On Stallman by reposter · · Score: 4

    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.