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.
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...
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"
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!"
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
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.
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.
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