Slashdot Mirror
"For Use on Free Operating Systems, Only!"
green pizza asks: "In looking at the license for Open Motif, I noticed the clause that prohibits its use on non-Free OSes. While I realize that this is for their own licensing reasons, I couldn't help but wonder how such a clause could help Linux and other Free OSes. Just imagine, the large proprietary commercial empires wouldn't be able to roll a truly Free piece of software into their commercial apps and claim their own innovation, or worse, try to snuff out a grass-roots open project. I think such a clause would be a win-win situation for Linux." I can see arguments both for and against such a clause in free software licenses. How do you feel on the subject?
My major problems with such a clause is that it prevents interoperability. Just imagine: if most of the standard GNU tools had this clause, Cygwin would not exist, and Mozilla would not have the impact that it does today...neither would BIND or Apache. I feel that such a clause would do more to limit the ability of Open Source to penetrate new markets, and it won't help get Open Source into the enterprise where Closed Source software reigns supreme.
Exactly. Now you're starting to see through the GNU hype. Admit it, the freest license there is, is no license at all. If you truly cared about FREE software, it would go in the public domain without your name attached. That's where mine goes.
It just occured to me that this is bound to attract howls of "RMS doesn't have the right to decide what free means". I fully agree, and do not wish to imply otherwise, but he does decide what future versions of GPL mean, which has practical implications.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
``For use on * operating systems only'', where * represents free, or whatever other non-functional attribute, is clearly a case of the vendor imposing his will to restrict uses of the software which do not affect anyone else but the user. The vendor is taking away certain freedoms from the user, freedoms which don't encroach on other people's freedoms. So this is a foul restriction in the light of a basic freedom principle, namely that what other people do is their business if it doesn't affect you.
Note that the GNU license doesn't restrict uses of software, only that redistribution of the software, when it occurs, should happen in certain ways which promote the freedom. The license takes away only one freedom: the freedom to impose a reduced freedom on others.
RMS On 'Open' Motif on slashdot of all places.
Really? So if I go to the local computer store and buy RedHat Linux for $45, or cheepbytes slackware for $2.95, it ain't a free OS?
Linus Torvalds a fraud! Linux unfree! Details at 11:00.
Or is the issue more complex then that?
I don't think so. One would have to go to the trouble of getting a free libc like glibc or the BSD libc to run on the non-free OS, but once done they could use the more-viral-then-normal-GPL on a otherwise non-free OS.
Or on a few where the libc is all ready free, like Mac OS X where the libc is (as far as I know) part of the BSD licensed part, but the OS as a whole is clearly non free (in either sense of the word) there wouldn't even be trouble involved.
Very good point. Isn't some of the microcode on that Pentium processor un-free? What about the design of some of the ASICs? I'll bet the electricity comes from a generator that may have a Windows machine controlling it!
It's already happening. You just have the parties reversed.
Qt/Windows and Free are inherently incompatible. Since the only version of Qt/Windows is non-Free, it can't be used to build Free software on Windows. In this case, Qt is a non-Free, third-party library. TrollTech leaves the cop out that you can use Qt/Free with X11 libraries and an X server for Windows. Why this is absurd is left as an exercise to the reader.
GTK+, on the other hand, is licensed under the LGPL. And that means all platforms, including proprietary ones, such as Windows, BeOS, and Mac OS X.
That killer app you speak of will get here, but as a Gnome app, not KDE.
We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
The GPL only comes in to play when I wish to distribute software.
I provide support for a small Dharma group that does a lot of work translating texts from Tibetan to English. As a consequence, almost everybody in the group has a computer. We even have an IS policy: everybody has to run Windows. (Needless to say, I did not set this policy! :')
We have an additional problem - we have all vowed to behave ethically, even to people who are not behaving ethically towards us. A consequence of this is that I have to be very careful about how I copy software. Even though we aren't exactly rolling in cash, I won't pirate software.
This gives me a nice in for showcasing the good qualities of free software. I grabbed a copy of abiword the other day and installed it on one of the nuns' computers, and she was really excited - it's a free piece of software that can read Word documents and can be used for real work. So she doesn't have to spend $300 on a copy of Word. Furthermore, because the software is open source, and already supports Unicode, I am pretty sure I can modify it to support Tony Duff's GPL'd Tibetan fonts that the Trace Foundation recently released.
So this means that we can ship a free, WYSIWYG Tibetan word processor along with all the Tibetan documents we'll be sending around. This is *very* exciting. It's also good for the Free Software community, because it means that lots of people are suddently going to start using a piece of Free Software. They'll be running it on Windows at first, but as time goes on I'm hoping to wean our group off of Windows and onto Linux or NetBSD.
The end result: more market share for Open Source software. The cause: Open Source software for Windows. We'll see what happens...
See http://www.debian.org/social_contract, section 6 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
In a word, limiting software distribution, in any form, makes said software non-free.
Um, that you paid for the DVD?
Why does person/group A always try to force their opinion on person/group B??? This has caused most wars (both virtual and real) It's also a HUGE waste of resources.
You're right! In fact, I think anybody who forces their views on others should be forced not to, because it's wrong to do so!
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Ironically enough, we already have exactly this situation with respect to KDE and GNOME, except that the relationships are reversed. KDE and GNOME are both under GPL; however, Qt is only avaiable for Win32 (native) under a proprietary, commercial license; the GPL applies only to the X11 version of Qt. Meanwhile, GTK+ for Win32 is available under the GPL. A theoretical port of KDE to Windows (using Qt) is not possible at this point, but a theoretical port of GNOME to Windows (using GTK+) might be, depending on the quality of the port.
However, Qt is still able to grab more mindshare than GTK+ or wxWindows for Windows development, despite the fact that it's not free. This is because Qt has a reputation as superior (easier-to-use, more goodies) toolkit for Linux development than the C++ port of GTK+, and because Trolltech is pushing Qt for educational use.
Meanwhile, wxWindows (which is LGPL except that you can distribute derived works any way you like) has almost no mindshare (relatively speaking), even though it's an equivalent toolkit to Qt and is more portable than GTK or Qt.
End result: developers are more likely to sell their employers on Qt for Windows than on wxWindows or GTK+, even though it's a commercial package. Corolary: Trolltech makes some (IMO) well-deserved money.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
I don't think anyone here is debating that. The questions are: was this a good move; should other software projects do the same thing; does this help open source?
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
Your point is well taken, but speaking personally, I like the idea that the source code *has* to be made available if a project is GPL'd. This is a restriction on my ability to distribute software that I can live with, and I think that it helps the community as a whole to keep this restriction in place.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
I'm against it. I think GNU/Open Source programs should be available anywhere (Everywhere :)).
./configure .tar.gz on to the "Install from Source" icon on the desktop are equivalent.
Where I go, my tools go with me.
I invision a future where:
make
make install
and Dragging a
-Tom
I don't know. I'm used to Slashdot editors telling me how it is. You sure you can't help me out here?
What's the point? What I mean is, who would use a license like this? (I don't even understand why the Open Group does.) There are already licenses available, and in widespread use, that accomplish the goals of widespread free use and Free Software.
If you want the library to be totally open and free, use the BSD license. The BSD license and its users are all about code reuse, without regard to the manner or environment in which it's used. Free Software or proprietary, it's all OK.
If you want to allow the library to be used by Free Software developers, and still license it to proprietary developers for profit, use the GPL, ala Troll Tech. The GPL version could only be used for Free Software (that is, licensed under a GPL compatible license), but you as the developer would still be free to license the library to proprietary vendors for use in their proprietary products.
Using GPL, "large proprietary commercial empires" are already unable to "roll a truly Free piece of software into their commercial apps" or "snuff out a grass-roots open project".
Restricting the *use* of software/libraries is outside the scope of both licenses, as it should be.
So what about running OpenMotif under Windows under VMware under Linux?
What about it?
Both Windows and VMWare are proprietary, non-open source pieces of software. Just because they're both running under Linux doesn't mean squat.
Let me ask you this - just because you're holding something I own, does that change the fact that I own it?
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It would be a perfectly reasonable license for proprietary code, but it's not free software, because free software does not restrict use. Duh. Why are you even posting this crap? Surely, there's real stuff to talk about...
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I can see the argument for restricting use of code to free OSes. But that is not in the spirit of Free (as in speach not beer) Software.
I think that restricting use of software would only bring us down to the level of the code horders.
Join us now and free the software.
--
Playing keep away and acting like brats doesn't do anyone any good, just ask Apple. The sole real-world advantage of open source/free software is that it often works better than commercial software. Make it so that it doesn't work, or you're not allowed to make it work and people will simply not bother with it.
Besides, is it really a BAD thing for a company to take some code an build a business off it? I've never heard of anyone storming the offices of BSDI and demanding that the company stop selling its open source derived OS.
To me open source represents a needed increase in competition more than anything else. I don't believe it will take over the world or put an end to commercial software. In fact I don't even believe there is any need to. What is needed is something to shake the industry up and knock some particularly big fish down to size so that everyone has more room to swim.
In a way open source is kind of like a gun. Both give their owners the ability to defend themselves from tyrrany. In the case of guns the tyrrany might be the government, but that doesn't mean that an honest government that is accountable to the people is a bad thing. In the case of open source the tyrrany might be companies like Microsoft that have so much power that they can abuse their customers. Open source provides competitive products that can't be bought out and whose parent companies can't be bankrupted. This forces companies that might otherwise try to exploit their customers to treat those customers with a little more respect. In the long run most people are better off because of this. If we start being jackasses and try to tell people where and how they can use a particular piece of software then how does that make us any different from the customer's point of view than some commercial entity telling them where and how they can use a piece of software?
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I may add a first born child clause at some point too. Or a root beer one.
;-)
Ah... that would be "free as in root beer," then?
Or would that be "free(2) as in uid 0 beer"?
Hmm... I think I should wake up in the mornings, BEFORE posting
Tell us, oh Software Master, where is your wondrous public domain software located?
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
I don't see the problem unless you want to use their software the way the original programmers do not want you to. In that case feel free to reverse-engineer and write your own version of the software and use the license you want, just don't hassle the original programmers just because you don't like the license they chose...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Well it's widely acknowledged that visical sold a lot of apple IIs. If you have a killer app that everone wants but it only runs on linux or only runs on free software you would get people to switch just to use that software. The ricky part of course is to get that software in the first place.
War is necrophilia.
I don't think you understand what free software means.
Free software does not mean cross platform software. If I wrote a game that ran on linux but not on windows because it used X AND that game was wildly popular people would switch to linux to play the game that their friends were raving about. The game could be GPLed and free. The software license has nothing to do with what platform it runs on.
I think people should write free software but I don't necessary think they should write cross platform software (unless of course it's nothing special). This is especially true if the software is clearly superior to commercial version or is enough of an enticement to lure users into linux.
War is necrophilia.
Even if the source if Free it would be a herculean effort to port an X game over to the windows or mac platform.
You can not have enough "killer apps" apache is a killer app for linux but windows has exchange, IE, quicken and dozens of other "killer apps" which don't run on other operating systems. These discourage people from switching to other OSes as well as luring them to switch from other OSes. Linux needs it's own arsenal of "must have" software packages that only run on linux (or at least on linux and freebsd). When we have this arsenal we will have incentive for people to switch. Until then there is no other reason then ideology.
It's not that you'd be forcing people to switch they would choose to come over here because the grass is greener.
War is necrophilia.
What is the difference fundamentally between saying
"that piece of software you own can only be used on OSes that we approve of"
and "that DVD you own can only be played on devices we approve of"
Why does person/group A always try to force their opinion on person/group B??? This has caused most wars (both virtual and real) It's also a HUGE waste of resources.
Saying the GPL is restrictive is purely semantic.
------
Please note that he's not the typical GPL supporter. I am a GPL supporter, and I really don't mind if people make money from my software. I think my mindset is more common than that of the parent of your post.
------
This gives RMS some influence, but it's not in the GPL itself, so you don't have to trust RMS if you don't want to (see what Linus did with his contributions to the kernel).
------
Correction: GPL is freedom; public domain is anarchy. Some people don't mind anarchy (which is fine, in this case).
------
Have you emailed nVidia to nag it to release the source today?
------
GPL FAQ? Do you have a link?
------
People don't all stor their kernel sources in /usr/src/linux .
------
It's basically a question of whether or not we (the free OS community) want to compete head-on with the proprietary OS companies. If we're going to go into fierce competition with proprietary systems, we're not going to want to give those systems any advantages, like using free software on proprietary systems.
I expect there will be a never-ending flamewar about this, because people with different visions will have different opinions on this matter.
I think, in the end, there will be five mindsets when it comes to software licencing:
Failing to understand each other, these groups will be in constant conflict and will fragment the market.
------
Not the GNU definition, the OSD (Open Source Definition) and/or the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines).
------
Yes. Yes I do. However, in certain cases, and only in those cases, I am willing to trade a bit of freedom for security. I am willing to say that people should be prevented from or punished for doing things that deprive people of life, health, or property. But that's all. So, yes, being able to do anything you want is total freedom, but total freedom may not be a good thing.
The developers of GPLed software usually want the security of not having their software used by Microsoft.
On the other hand, I remain open to the position that total freedom is in fact a good thing. Unlike you, who just wants to push the GNU "non-GPL software is tainted" ideology.
Now you've offended me. I have never pushed the "`non-GPL software is tainted' ideology". I have absolutely no problem with people distributing software in the public-domain (or BSDL, which is almost the same thing). In fact, I advocate it when the goal is for the software to become an industry standard, or if the code is so trivial that nobody should have to rewrite it because of copyright issues. Heck, if it weren't for BSD, Darwin wouldn't exist. My central complaint is that anti-GPL/anti-RMS people keep pushing the "GPL software is tainted/viral/etc" ideology.
------
There's also the "embrace, extend, and extinguish" argument -- that they don't want Microsoft to use their code to keep it free of Microsoft's "innovations".
------
'You may only use this software on an OS that conforms to license X'
is the same as:
'You may only use this disc on a player that conforms to license Y'
And we all know how offensive such a clause is to the slashdot community, don't we?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
GPL ensures that derivative works are free to the same degree that the origial work was free to begin with. \irony
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
The definition of Open Source, as detailed in the Licenses in question is as follows.
These clauses say nothing about disallowing distribution or use on "non-free" operating systems as the original poster implied. Review definition above and compare it to the word "non-free".
Additionally, Open Group is willing to provide an alternative license for the software, as stated by the License. This caveate emptor is very similar to what Trolltech used to do with Qt. It is also a clause that keeps the Open Group API and software in the "non-free" branch of Debian. For example, this is the information on the libmotif package:
--
assert(expired(knowledge));
> Stealing free software is already illegal.
How do you steal something that is free ?!?
> If somebody is already claiming it as their own, how is this clause going to stop them?
That is plagiarizing, aka copyright infringement and fraud, not stealing.
> For instance a free publication might say "only one per person". If you took 500 then this would be theft.
That's a good example, but then it's not 100% free, since it's freedom depends on a conditional.
> Perhaps you are not aware that the "free" in software is meant as in "liberty" rather than "for no cost".
Yes, I am quite aware of the difference. I just wanted you to clarify which meaning of free you were using.
> In many cases free software comes with restrictions designed to protect this freedom. Hence its quite possible to steal it if you deny these restrictions.
If something is truely "free", then you can't steal it. In this case you would just be breaking the license agreement, probably infringing the copyright.
I believe that the reason is that the OpenMotif authors are trying to get the best of both worlds. If you notice, OpenMotif is Motif ("The public license will allow the release of the Motif source code, as a product called Open Motif"). However, OpenMotif isn't licenced for "non-free" operating systems because "The existing commercial release of Motif continues to be available for non-Open Source distribution".
In other words, some companies paid for the right to distribute Motif on non-Open Source platforms, and T.O.G. wants to retain that business. However, on Open Source platforms, T.O.G. has competition that has undercut their position in the market (MooTIF, for example) and effectively prevented Motif from entering the arena, since few companies are willing to pay for a licence to distribute a product that can otherwise be obtained for free. This OpenMotif licence is T.O.G.'s attempt to regain some "Open Source platform" ground for Motif without disturbing the paying customers (too much).
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
electricity comes from a generator that may have a Windows machine controlling it!
And they'd be idiots if there were one.. MS has said, at one time or another, that one of their operating systems was capable of anything.
Now look at your license for Windows. NT, NE, WfW, 386, doesn't matter.. See down there near the bottom, where they specifically tell you not to do exactly this?
.sig: Now legally binding!
I'd rely on the GPL to keep my code free.
We know that the QT toolkit works in Windows 9X, so KDE apps could (I guess) be ported over without having to recode for a new interface.
Let's say the GTK+ is released with this clause, and all work on the Windows version of GTK+ was halted.
Somebody makes a killer KDE app that Windows doesn't have. It gets released on Windows as well (with a little work), so all the Windows users see it. Gnome comes out with it's own version, but due to the restrictions in the license, the Windows users never see it. More KDE apps get ported over and used. People get used to the KDE apps (and maybe even X windows).
When they decide to run Linux, what window manager will they run? Probably KDE. They've seen it, they've used it, and it makes sense to them (after they've used it for a while). They don't bother with Gnome. After all, KDE works fine, so why mess with what works?
The end result would be lots of Windows users using KDE and not Gnome. Gnome would have lost mindshare in this scenario.
Is this scenario likely to happen? I hope not.
Windows is trademarked by Microsoft, yada yada yada.
The developers of GPLed software usually want the security of not having their software used by Microsoft.
Which just goes to prove the point that GPLers aren't interested in good code for the sake of good code, they're interested mainly in pushing a political ideology. "Wahhh, wahhh, Microsoft is a successful business, and I don't want to share my toys with them. So I'm going to make sure that nobody can use my stuff unless they agree to my terms." Yeah, I've heard it before, and it only reinforces my point. The GPL isn't about freedom, it's about a utopian "software is free" society. When people start pushing their ethics on other people, even people they don't like, that's when freedom loving people get scared.
Personally, if Microsoft decided that some code I'd written is better than what they could do in house, as long as they give me credit I'd be thrilled to have helped make a Microsoft product something better than the total piece of crap it more than likely was.
My central complaint is that anti-GPL/anti-RMS people keep pushing the "GPL software is tainted/viral/etc" ideology.
Well, the whole concept behind the GPL is that it is viral, so if you have a problem with that then perhaps you need to sit down for awhile and think.
Ok, this seems like a good thing at first. But what about partially-free OSs? I'm assuming this license would NOT let someone use Open Motif on something like Mac OS X, which has lots of non-Free stuff on top of Free stuff (OTOH, you could use Open Motif on Darwin!)
So that begs the question of where do you draw the line? How much non-free stuff added to a free OS makes it non-Free? There has to be some allowance, or any Linux distro that came with some bundled commercial app would be non-Free (or worse, even Debian would become non-Free if someone installed some non-Free utility or driver on it).
But Mac OS X becomes an interesting question. You could replace the kernel of Mac OS X with the kernel from Darwin - they're identical - and what you truly would have is a bunch of non-free userland stuff running on a Free kernel.
What do people think?
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
I'm not a GNU zealot, or generally outspoken in the Freesoftware movement. I use Linux almost exclusivly, and urge others to at least try it. I say this only so you know my background, and that I'm not a zealot OR biggot.
.jpg I made with the Gimp in Paint Shop? That I can't use an open-source driver to power a proprietary device?
I'm really against this. Free Software should be just that. Free. If I get a piece of free software, I expect the source code to be there, so I can go through, and change things to work better for me. I also expect the ability to change it enough to run on my systems.
Maybe I'm wrong, and expecting too much. Maybe I, as an end user, shouldn't expect this kind of freedom, but if something's labeled as free software, this is what I expect. A license that says I can modify it, and use it to suit my needs.
In my opinion, free software should not be restricted by what you use it in conjunction with. If I want to port vi to BeOS, I should be allowed to. And if you think that this is going to start and stop with Windows, you are wrong. How big of a change would it to be to say that I can't open a
There should be restrictions on open sourced programs, but I think these restrictions should be
to protect the user, not restrict him.
Don't make money off someone else's free software, and don't tell me how to use it.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
for some software at least.
I think for software such as web browsers and office suites, attaining "critical mass" is a hugely important step. You can go from always playing catchup to the most widely used standard setting software (office, ie) to actually having people exchange documents in your native format and testing their webpages in your browser.
Pigeonholing your software to only be usable on OSes which are in the vast minority is not going to help this cause.
Hell, it probably hurts the OSes in these cases. A reasonable way to try to get people to migrate off closed source OSes like windows would be to provide useful software ON windows that is also available on free OSes. If at some point they find that they can use the SAME software on another OS that happens to be free, switching will seem like much less of a hassle. Of course, the free OS needs to be easy to use...
My "Open Source License" (Legally binding in the state of Virginia) secretly indoctrinates you into the Open Source Army which, once it becomes large eough, will march on Redmond. I may add a first born child clause at some point too. Or a root beer one. Yes, software licensing CAN be fun!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Free software is only truly free if it has no restrictions on where it can be used. The GPL only protects the author and encourages giving back to the community, but it does not in any way restrict my use of the software. I'm all for protection of the author's rights, but this is going a step too far.
Hmmm...when intellectual property companies try to attach nonsense like "You are not licensed to read this version of Alice In Wonderland aloud," the people here go nuts.
How is saying "you can't run this program on non-free OS systems" any different than that?
I never read RMS objecting to the porting of GNU tools on Windows, for instance, while the proposal debated here would make it illegal.
Libraries are a bit tricker, because 'using a library' and 'making a derivative work of the library' are almost the same thing. IMHO LGPL is a good thing, but then I never wrote a single line of free software.
Ciao
----
FB
For one, the GPL could not contain such a clause, as it is based (wisely, I feel) on Copyright, and grants additional rights to the user, provided certain steps are followed. Telling someone what OS they can run the software on is a right removal, and therefor incompatible.
Other Free licenses which are based on shrinkwrap-style licensing could incorporate such a restriction, but there are several reasons why I feel that this would be a mistake. Firstly, it is overly combative. Free software has been about sharing and cooperation, and about demonstrating the superiority of such an approach, not about "us" and "them" and fighting a war because "they" are bad and "we" are good. Secondly, if we're going to call it Free(unencumbered) software, it's kind of moronic to then add all sorts of restrictions to its use the same way non-Free software producers do.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
do you remember when OS/2 was kind of popular (you might not, since it was before linux became mainstream)? did you read the license with any M$ product at that time? it restricted the product's use to windows, in an effort to keep that software from being used under Win-OS/2. check it out...
Alas, the irony...
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"I don't want to share my toys with them. So I'm going to make sure that nobody can use my stuff unless they agree to my terms." Yeah, I've heard it before, and it only reinforces my point.
Developers also don't want Microsoft contaminating their RFC-conforming code with "embrace and extend" RFC violations like MS did with Kerberos and a lot of other MIT and BSD licensed software.
Personally, if Microsoft decided that some code I'd written is better than what they could do in house, as long as they give me credit I'd be thrilled to have helped make a Microsoft product something better than the total piece of crap it more than likely was.
Would you want Microsoft to turn your code into a piece of crap? GPL, QPL, and other copyleft licenses protect the integrity of the code by requiring any changes to be visible to anyone with access to diff.exe.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Both Windows and VMWare are proprietary, non-open source pieces of software. Just because they're both running under Linux doesn't mean squat.
Likewise, Award BIOS is a proprietary, non-open source pieces of software. So is the Athlon, Pentium, and Crusoe microcode. Just because Linux is running on top of it doesn't mean squat. The definition of "operating system" is too vague.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If Open Motif's license does not allow you to use it on top of proprietary code, good luck soldering your own microprocessors, as Pentium microcode is non-free software, and Crusoe's Code Morphing(TM) microcode is even covered by Transmeta's patents.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Strict Free - Like GPLv2, but without the "proprietary OS" exception; binaries can only be distributed for free systems.
The Debian Free Software Guidelines state that your "Strict Free" is not Free at all.
Besides, define "free system." One where you soldered your own processor instead of using proprietary Crusoe code-morphing microcode? Otherwise, you could circumvent the license by running the code under an emulator.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The GPL doesn't actually restrict the end user fom doing anything. As an end user, I can download GPLed programs and link them with damn well whatever libraries I want
It's true that the GPL doesn't touch use of software, but there may be other licenses on a piece of software (especially server software) that do affect its use and do not conflict with the GPL. Such licenses would be under the "public performance" provision of copyright law; even if you're not distributing binaries, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize parties to provide the application as a public service.
(Of course, nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.)Will I retire or break 10K?
In my day job I develop embedded firmware. There are a few pieces of GPL'd code I'd like to include in my product. But, since the whole firmware image is linked as one monolithic executable, I can't without having to give away the source to the entire ball of wax! ... I wouldn't mind providing the source to the GPL'd modules. I wouldn't even mind providing any modifications I made to those modules to get them to compile on my platform. But that's not good enough for the GPL.
I looked into this issue when thinking about how to license my GPL'd NES games for use in a "pirate" multicart image. You can probably cover parts of your embedded image as mere aggregation under the GNU GPL if you create an abstraction of "an executable" that can be extracted from the monolithic ROM image and be replaced independently. NES has such a concept; it's called a "program bank" that can be bankswitched into the address space.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In this case, someone considering Open Motif has the choice to use an alternative that provides similar functionality.
Lesstif is source-compatible with TOG's Motif and is under Lesser GPL.
With DVDs, you don't have an alternative
VHS. Or video capture to MPEG-4.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sounds anticompetitive to me.
You can use our product, as long as you don't use it on a platform that costs $$$.
Also, why the hell should the goal of the Linux community be to snuff our M$? What about just producing useful software? What about compatibility? Is all of this compatibility merely to undermine M$? Anybody who's been in the business long realizes that compatibility should be a goal so that you can be more productive, not so that you can snuff out everyone else! What if M$ wrote in a clause saying that you couldn't run their apps under any other OS? Good bye emulators and WINE. (Hope I didn't give them any ideas).
Eh...
Restricting usage to free operating systems will not further that goal. People can still use the software without sharing back to the community (although this can be achieved with additional license clauses). And few people are going to switch to free operating systems just because of one application (unless it is a real killer-app (and few of them exists)).
Why would I want people using e.g. Solaris to not use my software? If they use it, the software is likely to get contributions from their users, improve in quality and grow. By restricting usage to Linux/*BSD and other free systems only, I will no longer be able to take advantage of knowledgeable users of other systems. Thus, I am not even helping the growth of even my own free software!
So, if the idea is to further the growth of free software, I would advice against it.
Secondly, would any of the free OS's gain much by having unwilling users being forced to switch? I don't think so. People should use free software because it has advantages for them (be it better quality, lower costs, more flexibility, or for educational reasons). That is the way to get inspired users who will contribute to the project. I doubt anyone who is forced to run Linux (or some other free OS) simply for license reasons are likely to contribute much to the Linux (or other free OS) community.
Besides, even many Linux users are going to shun something under this license. If you can use it at home, but not at your workplace, then what good is it? Find something else, and not bother with it unless it is something really exciting. Well, that's how I think anyway...
As I understand it, an effort was made to solve this issue by having the contributors license their IP to the public for free, but contributors balked (or even more likely, got bogged down in their own legal departments). Hence this weird compromise.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
RMS wants you to use the GPL for your libraries, not the LGPL, for this very reason. If you GPL your libraries, then it means no proprietary software can use your library, period. That's exactly what his point was. :)
See his comments
here.
Apache is a nice example here. It runs fine on Windows and I suspect quite a few NT admins have chosen to run apache over IIS for price/performance issues.
Hopefully these sys admins will see that open source can provide a very high quality solution and perhaps their next server will be Linux.
As open source projects get more mature I really think that more work should be put into porting them to windows and macos. Having a user using OpenOffice instead of M$Office is excellent and puts them one step closer to adopting a free OS.
I wonder what RMS's take on this whole concept is.
If you write GPL software and release the source people can do whatever the hell they want with it. If they want to port it to MS's OS then that's their perogative. Artifically limiting what people can do with free software is the first step in the slippery slope towards complex restrictive EULA hell.
I wouldn't want free OS's to prosper if the only way it could be done would be to use microsoftian licensing terms.
Free software should prosper because it's a better model, not because people are forced into it so they can use certain programs. I can't stress enough how similair this is to microsoft. Why do you use windows? Because everybody in your office uses Word and you have to as well. you have no choice.
As a community open source developers and programmers have consistently worked to make their products gain acceptance on the entire market. Non-free software will exist well into the forseeable future (I believe that free and non-free can coexist forever), so it's important to make sure that open source products aren't shooting themselves in the foot.
As soon as an open source product proclaims that it can't be used on "non-free" operating systems, the license ceases to be truly "free". Besides, a definition of "free" would need to be provided, and enforcement is close to impossible. In addition, it would serve to do nothing but piss of major corporations on the fence for using open source software - they don't know what kind of operating system they'll be running in the future. Companies are inherently afraid of locking themselves into something they can't completely trust. They trust that Microsoft will be around in some form in 5 years, but there's no guarantee that these open source operating systems will be as popular and widely used as they are now.
Anyway, I hope for the future of open source that license developers refuse to include this addition.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
While free OS are still a niche market this won't matter much - it will probably just reduce the usage of this tool. But if at some point Linux becomes the standard, this could be a problem for users - it seems to me. (Much like DVD becoming standard even though it started as a specialty product.)
sulli
RTFJ.
The interesting item is what they consider an open system. In the faq they specifically state their intent is to insist the kernel be open source as defined by The Open Group and reprinted in the license. If we take this statement in the most liberal light, and count OS X as open, this seems a rather weak restriction. In fact, the only major operating systems affected is Windows and Unix variants like Solaris.
In the end, this seems to an effort to keep Open Motif off Windows machines, which I think, in light of the behavior of Microsoft and some Windows developers, is a rather intelligent restriction to impose. The best case scenario is that all major OSes use open Kernels.
This license would do something else -- it would prevent the use of both free and proprietary software on the same machine, it would likely be bad for programmers, bad for employees, and bad for companies.
Programmers sometimes prefer to use proprietary software. It's a fact, they're just often better tools than their free counterparts (if those exist at all). Not allowing programmers to have hybrid systems of free and proprietary code can be stifling.
You know all the stories you hear about how a savvy employee snuck in a Linux or FreeBSD server in his company's server farm and it outperformed all the NY boxen? This would never happen. Employees would not be allowed to introduce free code unless *all* the proprietary stuff was chucked. Which is unlikely and brings us to...
Companies often use proprietary software because it does the job best. Period. Convincing a small ISP to discard the NT servers running IIS in favor of a Linux machine running Apache is difficult enough -- the ISP would have to get a new sysadmin, etc. And forget about trying to migrate large companies with significant investments in certain hardware/software platforms.
The bottom line is that this would be an overly restrictive license.
There's bound to be a reason behind this, and while most people think it's just the Open Motif authors being silly, perhaps it's because they're forced to? They might be thinking for all non-free OS vendors know they aren't allowed to call themselves UNIX(R) unless they use a licensed and approved XOpen implementation of Motif. Perhaps Open Motif are covering their asses?
Does my bum look big in this?
Ironically, I believe that a restriction such as "for use on free OSes only" would make software non-free under the GNU definition.
While the advantages of such a "super-viral" licensing restriction are clear, it is probably going too far. Heck, the BSD-licence fans already say that the GPL goes too far and is going to strangle free software in excessive idealism. I'm not sure I agree, but I would prefer that free software just remain free, even for people who want to use it with other non-free software.
Note that this restriction is *not* necessary to prevent companies from rolling the software into their proprietary product. The GPL already prevents that.
-Rob
Ever since petty politics and silly ideologies like this got involved in computers, and people began idolizing their machine and the software on it, rather than treating it like a TOOL that it was meant to be, computing has completely lost the effect of wide-eyed wondernment it used to have on me. The awe of a beautiful game (and it was usually games that impressed me) is now sullied by the catcalls of "..but does it run on linux??" and petty infighting.
How sad.
-
Restricting free software to only run on Free OSen is a really BAD idea. The ability to use Apache, perl, BIND, Sendmail, and of course the incredible Cygwin, which even lets you run XFree86 / WindowMaker on NT, allows people trapped in corporate environments that are supposedly all-Microsoft shops the chance to sneak Free stuff in under the radar, and get experience with using it. These people are more likely to push for Free software later in their careers, when theyr'e not just web-monkeys. That's how I started - sneaking Apache and Perl onto Bain's corporate intranet in place of IIS and ASP. Got fired for it in the end, but now I'm doing mod_perl stuff on Linux and OpenBSD - I'd never have had the confidence to apply for those sort of jobs without the experience of using the good stuff in stealth mode.
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
Too bad the GPL didn't look like this about 10 years ago
Too true. If it had, there wouldn't be any FSF to speak of today. And the Open Source Movement would be comprised of a very few idealistic nuts who wouldn't know a business plan if it sat them down and gave them an hour-long Powerpoint presentation complete with coffee and donuts.
Kind of like now only on a much smaller scale.
Dancin Santa
We all rant and rave whenever some company tells us how we can use our product, for instance the movie industry's attempt to outlaw an open-sourced DVD player program for Linux. So it's hypocritical to then go and place restrictions on open software that amount to "Use it my way or not at all." You can never be sure that your way really is the best, but IMO even if your way really is the best, such a restriction will slow down the development of new and improved technology.
I grabbed a copy of abiword the other day and installed it on one of the nuns' computers, and she was really excited - it's a free piece of software that can read Word documents and can be used for real work.
So the nun does all her real work in an Abbey...-word.
her har har, ooh I apoligize.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
How is free defined, legally, in this sense? There are enough variants of it, judging by the trolls, to make this very shady as well. (It runs within our proprietary app upon the *free* linux operating system...)
I understand the urge to be as restrictive as possible with free or open source software, but in the end, I think liberal licenses are a better idea in most cases. Restrictive licenses may make sense on a case-by-case basis.
Even though you can buy DVD's you are restricted to using it to how we say you can... Even though you have Open Motif, you are restricted to using it to how we say you can.
Dinivin
I can't understand why do people think that Linux has to run somewhere, beat someone and achieve something. OS GNU/Linux is not a commercial project, and it does not have to be installed on every second box in the world in order to survive. True, more developers we have - well... more development we get, but will people please please please understand that beating the enemy (such as Windows) is not a goal. We're not conquering the market. We're making an OS for ourselves and let others to run it.
Closing availability for certain platforms would not help Open Source. It will not help us to reach our aim, which is, again, creating a free operating system and not converting everyone else from non-free ones. It will only hurt closed systems, but we'll get a reward in that the flow of potential users and developers would decrease.
There's entirely no point in limiting licenses to free OSs only. And yes, it won't be free anymore if you impose limits on it.
"We invented guns, drugs, nuclear bombs, but stupidity beats it all badly"