Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Convention 2001 Wrap-up
So, we've gotten a lot of submissions about various things related to the O'Reilly Open Source Convention. Michael Tiemann had a few words before the convention; Dan Gillmor wrote a column about it; Fred Baker made a few flameworthy remarks. For whatever reason the whole conference seemed to be dominated by the Mundie-Tiemann debate. See our earlier story for some good links, or watch the debate video, or just read some post-debate coverage here or here. And if you haven't heard enough from Mundie, you can even read his post-debate letter.
"What Mr. Mundie fails to note here, is that GPL'd works, being copyrighted, eventually are put into the public domain, at which time companies are perfectly free to create proprietary derived works."
But there's a very long time delay before these works get into the public domain and as we've seen recently, the owners of the work can find ways to extend it even longer.
"This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL."
You're right. This is the greedy part of the GPL, where it tries to lay claim to work that doesn't belong to it. Eliminating the derivative work clause might make the GPL less pervasive, but it would make it more legitimate.
Mundie is basically trying to separate the the people who support open source software into two groups, those that think the GPL is good and will continue to support it, and those who either already don't like it or can be convinced that it's bad.
They're attacking what they see as the biggest threat to their way of business, the GPL. I see this as a sort of proof that the GPL works. It's point is to ensure that software is kept free (as in speech). This is exactly the opposite of Microsoft's goal, which is to control every bit of software you use. Don't be mistaken, Microsoft doesn't like any sort of open source software, they're simply using tactics designed to separate the whole and detroy it one piece at a time.
Check out AbiWord.
Hmm, sounds like a 180 compared to how he blew off the whole siliconvalley.com "roundtable". I was interested in hearing how he defended Microsoft's position, except he never addressed any of the issues, really...
I am in the middle of a presentation where Bruce Perens is talking about the Skylarov incident. He is actually re-giving the Skylarov talk.
I want to write more about this later and listen now..
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
We flame, we're ideological, if we're not flaming ideologues then what are we?
Trolls.
NEVER use a spineless operating system.
It's a very dark ride.
You are confusing "Open Source" with "Hobbyist Programming". Take a good hard look at the Apache Project. They have stable and readable source code. For their later projects, like Xerces, they designed and evaluated the whole project before writing the first line of code. An it's Open Source.
And let's look at all of the closed source crap. My current boss used to work for SGI. They had an internal motto of "we have the world's biggest QA department...our users". I've seen requirement documents written *after* customer ship. And I've seen the opposite as well: thousands of UML diagrams and no code.
Generalities are generally [sic] wrong. The "generalized" Open Source project is a hobbyist's project. But not all of Open Source is hobbyist. A lot of it is front line code written by professional software engineers.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
* The Slashdot story editors look at the ground and shuffles their feet.
This being an open-source convention, why are they using a proprietary player?
If you accept anyone else's code contribution to your project it is no longer 100% your code, and therefore you will not be able to license it under other terms without permission from everyone who has ever contributed code to your project.
The only alternative I see is having code contributers sign a statement that says all their code contributions are your property.
Basically what I was trying to say... I was just a little pissed off at the time.
I use Linux for my own reasons, a lot of other people use Linux for their own reasons.... those reasons aren't going to change because some M$ puppet starts telling me that companies like RedHat will never succeed, and that the GPL will make it damned hard to sell your software
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL.
Impossible. Know why? The GPL's definition, or the definition of its authors, of deriviatve work doesn't matter at all. What matters is what copyright law considers to be a derivative work, and therefor what the copyright holder on the original work can apply terms to. Maybe if the company in question had a decent team of lawyers, they'd know this.
This is all clearly spelled out on the GNU pages, which no-one involved in this debate seems to have bothered to read.
-RickHunter
It really doesn't matter what the GPL considers a derivative work. The question is what constitutes a derivative work in copyright law. I'm sure the FSF would love to be able to declare that dynamically linking to an object (e.g. COM, CORBA) constitutes a derivation, but unfortunately it's not so.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Microsoft should change their slogan from Where do you want to go today to share and enjoy it seems a lot more fitting don't you think??
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
IIRC, a copyright is good for some N years after the original author's death, where N is very large (90?). In the case where the copyright is held by a corporation or organization, that becomes the lifetime of the organization + N years.
I could be wrong, but this is the way I understand it.
Not to say I think the GPL is a problem in most cases; if you can't use the GPL'd code, write an independent implementation. Generally GPL'd algorithms aren't patented, which can be a problem.
Microsoft didn't pay taxes in 1999 because stock options their employees exercised took up all their taxable profits. They get a deduction equal to the difference between what their employees paid for the stock and what the stock was worth at the time. Lots of companies do it. I'm not sure whether I consider it "wrong" or not, but I think the idea behind it is that their essentially being rewarded for distributing wealth to their employees. Anyway, food for thought.
--- Don't be a player hater: I meta-mod ALL negative mods as Unfair.
If you write/distribute GPLed software, the people you sell/give it to have the right to distribute it however they want (free or for $$$$).
You don't have to distribute the software to everyone but you do have to make the source available to the people who you do distribute the software to - you don't have to make the source available to anyone else. But, you also con't restrict your users from giving it to the rest of the world.
The main issue there seems to be informed consent, that is, do community contributors understand that their contributions may be used to generate revenue for someone else? I think we can all agree that it would be deceptive to represent software as GPLed and accept free submissions without informing contributors of the commercial licensing of their contributions.
Ghostscript is an example of a GPL'ed Free Software program that provides its primary author with a source of revenue from proprietary licensing.
Thanks for the reference! I see a general description of commercial licensing, but so far I haven't been able to find the modifications to the GPL that assign all modifications back to the owners of Ghostscript. Could you provide a quote or specific pointer, and explain how informed consent for contributing changes works here?
Software under Mozilla-style licenses requires ownership of published modifications to be assigned to the originator. Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner owns all modifications to Mozilla.
I can't find such a provision for assignment of modifications in the Mozilla Public License. Again, could you please provide specifics, and explain how informed consent is obtained?
Thanks, Tim
One point that the author makes in particular is that there is nothing wrong in concept with MS having a Shared Source program (Sun's SCSL is similar); its just that they are presenting it as something comparable to true open source licenses that is a problem.
Anyways, here's the link: Sun's viewpoint
-Mike Wolf
Yeah, because 'Embrace - Extend - Extinguish' is exactly what Microsoft did with the BSD TCP/IP Stack, right? They built on an academic work and used their huge marketing force to crush anyone else who tried to use TCP/IP. This is why the only computers on the Internet right now are using Microsoft operating systems!
No, wait, that didn't happen at all. Maybe this is just another case of Slash-holes overreacting and reading into Mundie's comments a meaning that isn't there...?
We should concentrate on better code, more user-friendly software and more consistent interfaces.
We should defend the GPL wherever we are, because it protects our rights to use our own work.
I know you Kingston military types are easily worked into a froth, but please... try to calm yourself down, or else you'll make RMC look like nothing more than a boot camp.
Wait a minute...
--
Oh dear.
To avoid your posts from appearing horribly broken, let the text box on the Post Comment form do the line wrapping for you. This way things will look much nicer (and will be significantly more readable, too.)
--
Any corporation can use GPL'ed code, Government funded or otherwise. They just have to release the resulting product under the GPL too. So what's the big deal? Just because the consumers (also taxpayers) have the right to the source code doesn't mean the company can't have a profitable business. Of course, the company would have to provide a good service, support etc that people would be willing to pay for, and I guess it might be a problem for SOME companies to realise that they have to do that.
yup - my point exactly :-)
Thanks for the reference! I see a general description of commercial licensing, but so far I haven't been able to find the modifications to the GPL that assign all modifications back to the owners of Ghostscript. Could you provide a quote or specific pointer, and explain how informed consent for contributing changes works here?
As far as I know, there is no modification to the GPL for Ghostscript, Artifex simply does like the FSF and asks contributors politely to assign copyright contributions to them. In the FSF's case, see Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors.
I can't find such a provision for assignment of modifications in the Mozilla Public License. Again, could you please provide specifics, and explain how informed consent is obtained?
See Amendment V.2 of the Netscape Public License, the license under which Mozilla was released (my bad for confusing the two). There are plain-english interpretations of the NPL on mozilla.org that explain that by publishing modifications to Mozilla, you grant Netscape a 2-year license to use your code (again, my error, it's not an assignment of ownership.)
Brent
If you try to see things from Microsoft's perspective (warped as it is), their arguments aren't without logic. They see proprietary code as the key to controlling the market, or "he who controls the code controls the market". Something like the GPL eliminates that control by keeping the code open and able to be modified. MS would no longer have the ability to come up with "trade secret" innovations that allow them to continue to dominate the market as they have in the past. Someone could always come along and improve or modify the product, and then the new non-MS version could be the dominant product.
Of course, this logic requires drinking the same Kool-Aid as the Microsoft marketing and business folks. Why make something better than the other guys when you can just make something the other guys aren't compatible with and then bundle it into every new computer that comes out? 'Cause that's the Microsoft way, and in that light GPL and other open-source licenses are very anti-Microsoft.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
---
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
Exactly. Or to put it a different way: MS is terrified that someday, somehow, a group of "hackers" will develop a piece of GPL'd software that is so good that MS can't reproduce or compete with it. Embrace and extend is powerless against the GPL.
You have to hand it to them - it's a reasonable fear. In fact, it has probably happened already.
-Renard
MS complains about how the GPL erects a wall between public and private development of code. Essentially hes saying that No private company can use GPL'd code because then they would no longer be private, all their source would have to be released under the GPL. I think that the GPL is a reaction to the draconian copyright laws now on the books. A good compromise would be a limited monopoly, you can keep code private for say 15 years and then it becomes public domain. Surprise surprise, this very compromise is what copyright holders destroyed in the last century in their quest for more money. Current Copyright law tips the balance completely away from fair use and public domain, the pendulum has swung all the way to the right. Reactionary actions beget more reactionary actions. The GPL is just as unfair to copyright holders as current copyright law is to citizens who use copyrighted material. The compromise is to go back to where we were 200 years ago. Copyright is temporary but well enforced. After 15 years or so, the source gets released. This is a good compromise because it makes nobody happy, yet it allows for free dissemination of ideas, while allowing commercial exploitation of said ideas in a closed source sense.
You give absolutely no evidence to back up that your method of designing software works better, whereas the tomes of free software on gnu.org and opensource.com do. These assertions are meaningless unless you provide real world proof, especially considering that countless free software projects proove you wrong daily. You nebulously say that KDE is a failure because it underwent redesign, but fail to mention that every single piece of closed source "Traditional" software has undergone many of these iterations, see dos -> win 3.1 -> win 95 -> Win2k -> WinXP .. or MacOS 8 -> -> Copland -> 9 -> X.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
solicisms? prevelent?
judge not...
Not really. Trolls take whatever position is neccessary to generate the flames. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
Best Slashdot Co
Michael appeared on stage like a know-it-all, almost making his position look bad because of his attitude!
dammit, why didn't they get Bob Young in there? Bob has both the idealism of Michael Tiemann, but with the mannerisms of Craig Mundie. or, despite appearances, John Maddog Hall could've done a better job.
where was larry augustine from VA linux? doen't VA own sourceforge? he would have been a perfect guest/speaker!
sigh...
This matters because users are finding themselves in an increasingly proprietary environment (or ecosystem, or whatever): it has gotten to the point where you have to _pay_ to do just about anything computer-related.
The more people perceive open source alternatives to be viable, and preferable to closed-source, the more people will begin to chafe at restrictions, fees, etc.: they will expect freer access. So when Big Corporation comes along and says, we want a new, profitable internet, Big Corporation will find themselves up against some substantial - and mainstream - resistance.
The inherent contradiction in this is the companies making money off open source are the ones who will bring it to a wider audience...
- O.K.
This is the way the GPL works. If you violate the GPL license, then the license terminates, and anything that would not be permitted under copyright is forbidden.
In theory, a company could only use GPL'd code for study, and never redistribute any of it, so the derivation clause would be a toothless dog (except as defined by copyright). But if a company redistributes any GPL'd works, then they must comply with the derivation clause of the license for all of them, or they run the risk of having the license to redistribute yanked due to their violation.
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
is that if I release my wonderfull code GPLed it doesn't stop M$ from using it - it just requires them to come back to me and license it under some other terms - ie if the evile empire wants my code to do as they please with they'll have to pay thru the nose - just like they expect their cistomers to do .... but if the local high school can live with GPL I'm quite happy to give them the use of my code - and of course I benefit personally from the exchange of code that the GPL bazzar creates - I get back way more than I put in - and I get to work oin the code that I want to - none of this "OS development is off limits because we know best" sort of attitude that M$ puts forward - I much prefer Linus's "If you do something usefull that will make the OS better I'll add it" - judge me on MY merrits, not where I fit in YOUR business plan
Just in this morning from OSCON - Kevin Lenzo introduces "Yet Another Society", a fund devoted to helping developers working in Perl and
9
other open source technologies. Larry Wall makes the first donation.
http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/51
MS may not have paid any income tax, but they still paid payroll taxes, and their employees paid income taxes, so they WERE contributing to the economy and the tax structure. MS's view on the GPL is that it limits commercial access to publicly funded works. I have to agree with them on this. If you are stupid enough to think of software as an eco-system, then the GPL probably would qualify as a virus. And AOL users would be at the bottom of the food chain.
Is it really that fun to work on a software project of any real complexity for which no design work has been done and which fails miserably to do anything well but the first feature programmed? I would think the feature creep and bug-squashing alone would drive the developer nuts after the alpha skeleton code was created. Even so, some prototyping might be in order to see if any serious design flaws come to mind.
And I still wouldn't rule out the notion that even a lot of planning can't undo the damage that a really great idea 80% of the way into the work would have on the overall design. And since software design is complex engineering that takes time to learn, I don't think we should fault the hobbyists and students who litter code repositories like SourceForge with projects for applying the paradigm for writing they learned in high school and English class-- that of the rough draft, revisions, final version. And until you spend time studying software design, all this talk of alphas and betas doesn't really clue you in to how much non-code upfront work goes into a successful software project.
I do not have a signature
At least in terms of being the `opposite' to Open Source software, which is simply untrue. The opposite of Open Source or Free Software is Closed soruce of proprietary software. Just because you view free to air television without paying to see it does not make it noncommercial. Just because you use Red Hat Linux without paying for licenses does not make it non commercial either. Commercialness is to do with the motives in producing the software,and in Red hat and Caldera and SuSEs case, these motives are often commercial (although obviously other parts of of the software were produced for altruistic reasons). We all know Open Source /Free Software is a good thing for the software industry. Using the terms `commercial' to mean `not Open Source' destroys that. I've never seen anyone oppose this argument, it seems to be a matter of ignorance or bad habit. The Free Software Foundation also has `commercial' on its list of confusing words for this exact reason.
Commercial software rocks. Provided its Open Source :)
Current U.S. Current Copyright is for life + 70 years, or for 95 years from publication (or 120 from creation, whichever is shorter) for corporate works (17 USC 302). Copyright of items created before 1978 depends on a number of factors (17 USC 303-305), but can quickly become the above on proper reregistration, etc.
Please can someone give me a coherent answer?
No, I didn't think so.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Female Prison Rape in NY
No it's not! I don't write any code under the GPL because I think it's too restrictive, but I wouldn't call it unfair by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to write and sell a proprietary compiler or an operating system based on GPLed software - you can't - so go write your own code, don't expect other people to give you their code for free, that's all the GPL is saying!
Female Prison Rape in NY
Anybody got another version? I'm all set with installing that POS software package.
--
Free Mac Mini
Remember, average /. poster != average coder. Average coder is probably too busy coding to post much to /.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Do you find the Mundie debate remotely interesting?
Or, did you tire of this issue a long time ago realizing that debates are an irrelevant, waste of time and that people will do what is in their best interests regardless of what the academic and marketeers think?
Someone you trust is one of us.
Noone who attended the convention really thought anything good was going to come out of it.
Mundie had to pitifully tread through the comments of his superiors and make peace with the crowd who was screaming for his blood.
Also Tiemann was never there to make a point for the Open Source, he was just there to take a good jab at MS and he succeeded in doing just that.
I thought the "incredibly smart people" reference to each community was just a thinly veiled attempt at making peace.
Rapid Nirvana
I know this has been done with the GNU toolchain. Also other bits. This is the big deal about GPL/FSF code: the copyright holder determines the license. Thus, the FSF can (and has) licensed GPL'd code to 3rd parties for commercial use.
This is a demonstrably false statement. Check the GNU GPL FAQ. There are a number of other places where rms states that the FSF does not and will not license GPL'ed code under non-free licenses. I challenge you to give documentation of an example of the FSF licensing code under non-free software licenses.
foog
Indeed. This is known as the Delphi debating method.
Read more at this location: Delphi debating - http://www.icehouse.net/lmstuter/page0019.htm
I mean, Microsoft has Atom Bombs, and so many Open Source people at one place...
I'm not sure that Bill Gates can handle the temptation.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk or something like that.
+++ATH0
+++ATH0
Now THAT would be fun.
+++ATH0
+++ATH0
Well, managed software is a way to stability and readable source code!
I've got an M.Sc. in CS and at work I "manage" a team of 6 people. I design, code and document. Three of my team are dedicated coders and two are jack-of-all-trades. The impression I often get when reading Slashdot is that most people here are coders who don't realise how important it is to design and evaluate the whole project before writing the first line of code. In my work I've realised that a well designed project is already half done.
And just how many open source projects work this way? I can't think of any. Most of them seem to start when a bunch of people get together and start writing code straight away. The result: code and APIs that have to be re-written from ground up later on when the fatal design flaws emerge. Witness KDE 1.x and KDE 2.x.
I'd like to say that open source code is the next best thing after sex but it just ain't so. There's plenty of things that could be improved and a more conservative approach with a proper design and documentation process would help a lot.
I may disagree with Craig Mundie, but I must congratulate him for his tenacity and bravery. He's taken quite a bit of time to explain the MS position on Open Source, and to engage in dialogue with the Open Source community. It's particularly admirable in light of the lack of respect that the OS community as a whole has given him, in spite of their public gestures.
If the OS people aren't careful, they may make Mundie look like the hero, while coming across themselves as flaming ideologues.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
WHY IN THE NAME OF PETE DOES ALL THIS SHIT MATTER!?!?!?!?!? The open source movement was never started to make money, so why the hell does everybody think that if it doesn't make money it will suddenly up and die!?!?!?!?!?
NEWSFLASH!!
In todays news everybody realized that opensource projects aren't making enough money, so all the programmers in the world decided unanimously to delete all their GNU/Linux tools and pay for closed source tools to make their free software with....
WHAT THE FAK!?!?!
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
believe that the technical term for this soft of conference is a "circle jerk."
Actually it kinda reminds me of the last US election.... "mudslinging competition" would probably be a more apt description.... though "circle jerk" ain't far off the mark...
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Having worked as a programmer, I agree: everything needs to be well-thought-out first.
What does that have to do with the license under which the program is released? The amount of time/effort I spent designing (or not) has no bearing on whether I distribute source with my binaries (or not). This seems like a straw man argument.
You aren't pointing out flaws in the open source paradigm. You're pointing out flaws in the design capabilities and self-discipline of most of the random one-off K3wl Projects of the Week on sourceforge.net.
No argument there; it's one way, but not the only way.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Why do we need to destroy windows in order to have a better world? I do agree that Microsoft has done some very questionable things in the past, and that there should be alternatives to Windows. But as someone who is forced to use Windows daily at work, I don't have much choice in the alternatives.
Now, if we had a system under Linux, Unix, *BSD, whatever, in which I could read and edit the documents that coworkers sent to me, I would be more apt to run a different OS. Staroffice is a start, but we need to go farther.
So while we are all here arguing over what was said by Micorsoft and its supports, we could be programming a solution that could seemlessly take them right off the map. Put together an office suite that will work with Microsoft products, install it on Windows. Get people used to using it, then switch the machines over to an alternative. The way to get at Microsoft is not to first kick them out as the OS, but kick them out as the application of choice.
Just my 2 cents, also a thought that has been bugging me.
Mr. Mundie and the rest of Microsoft have most people chasing a red herring.
The issue is not whether or not Microsoft's software is open source. The issue is not whether or not they like or will ever use the GPL. Being a capitalist entity, neither publishing open source software nor being GPL-friendly should be expected or demanded of them. It's just not logical.
The problem that everyone is concerned about, that prohibits true competition between Microsoft and Open Source developers, is not whether Microsoft's source code is available, but rather whether interoperability can be achieved. What the world needs, and what open source strives to provide, is something that can effectively compete with Microsoft's "standards."
Currently open source software has to compete in a crippled fashion: The developers don't have access to Microsoft's file formats (Word, Excel, etc). They don't have access to the network protocol documentation (e.g. SMB). They don't have access to many hardware forums and manufacturers, because they're not willing to sign NDAs or pay money for the privilege.
What people should be asking for is a level playing field. Making Microsoft open their source code is one way to do it, but it may take away their competitive advantage in other areas (for example, if they build a faster matrix solver) and arguably isn't fair to them. A reasonable alternative, however, would be to ask them to make all of their communication protocols transparent. Once you can interact with other Microsoft users as well as you could if you used Microsoft software yourself, the game is over.
Without such a concession from Microsoft (forced or otherwise), Microsoft's monopoly power will remain unchecked: the Internet will consist of Microsoft clients connecting to Microsoft servers running undocumented application protocols over TCP/UDP. (And you thought forcing HTML email on everyone was bad enough.) If you're smart, you'll either lobby Microsoft (or better, your gov't rep) to make them open their protocols, or you'll buy Microsoft stock.
Although his argument may have nothing to do with the open source license itself, that doesnt mean that he doesnt have a point. The way the GPL is designed allows and almost encourages the 'fly by the seat of your pants' coding methodoligy. People who arent selling the code dont want to bother with the boring part of design and preparation because they are doing it for fun. Its pretty clear that GPL development (in a non commercial environment) is inherantly 'fly by the seat of your pants'
ON THE OTHER HAND,
it also influences the 'product is NEVER done' system that the GPL promotes. and THATS why i love this stuff
"Think, It aint illegal.....yet" - George Clinton
I may be wrong (and I'd like to be corrected if I am) but my understanding of the GPL is that if MY software is licensed under the GPL then I have a right to sell my software for whatever price I want. I can even restrict the sale of my software by others. The only thing that I must do under the GPL is that I must make my source code available to anyone who buys my software.
Now, if somebody else wants to expand or repair my software they must also include the source code. But, as I understand it, they don't have an automatic right to sell MY software with minimal changes for less than what I charge.
In the GPL preamble it says:
In this sentance they seem to be talking "Free as in speech" not "free as in beer". but later in the GPL it states:
Perhaps "In any medium" can mean "compiled code?" if this is how Mundie is interpreting the GPL then perhaps he is correct in thinking that the GPL automatically makes all GPL'd code "Free as in beer".
I don't agree with him, but could he have a point from a purly legal perspective?
For example, it is clear that incorporating source from a GPL'd work is derivation. It is less clear if reimplementing the same idea, using the same algorithms, in the same language, is also derivation according to the GPL, and even less clear if you start dropping the language and algorithms. At what point do you cross over the line from copying the underlying idea (which is permitted) to copying the expression of that idea (which is not)?
That is what the problem is. By looking at GPL'd source code, and implementing the same idea, would a proprietary software developer be violating the copyright (and therefore the GPL)? RMS needs (IMHO) to address this in the next version of the GPL by clearly defining the line between fair use and infringement.
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
No kidding. I totally agree. I think the problem is that there isn't any peer review or even basic reality checking going on here with the movement. Any attempt to address a critisism is simply met with ignorant responses and scoffing.
Whenever I am not sure how to explain open source or free software to someone, I just think, "What Would Michael Tiemann Do?"
He insults VC people, insults the world by saying that "some people get it" when it comes to OS/FS, tells us that there are "some smart people" at MS, and comes off cocky and immature at the same time.
While I believe in OS and FS, for heaven's sake, at least be mature about it!
-Adam
Go ahead, moderate me down if you think this is off-topic, or if you listened to the panel and talks and determined that I've got it all wrong.
This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
I wasn't trying to suggest that you wanted to eliminate the "derivative work" language. That was my own idea. The only part that had to do with you was "You're right". Perhaps I should have put the rest in a different paragraph.
On the other hand, I don't see incorporating source as a derivation, it's simply copying. If you eliminate incorporation from derivation you and I pretty much agree on this.
I would be surprised if RMS made such a revision to the GPL since it could slow the growth of GPL'ed code (IMHO).
If they were to do that, then everybody wins, because even if they took expired GPL code and made proprietary improvements, the shorter copyright term would ensure those improvements coming back to the public domain in a timely manner (after a reasonable time period to recoup their investment and make a profit).
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
If anything, the mere suggestion that it is further proves the man's thesis. If there is one big "problem" with open source these days, it's the unreasoned fanaticism of its proponents. We have met the enemy, and it isn't Microsoft. It is us.
Yes, many times the Open Source community has produced things better than commercial endeavors. Apache and IIS is a great example. So are vim and/or emacs vs. pretty much any closed source editor. etc. etc. Perl kicks the ass out of VisualBasic every day of the week and three times on Sunday. In terms of security and ease of administration, any of the free unixen beat win32 server platforms hands down IMHO. But there are times when, well, face it guys, someone with a clue works for a company and makes something good that is closed source. ASP pages, for example, have a nice object model (just use jscript to avoid that vbscript suckage ;-) ). Anyone who things linux/*bsd is a good OpenGL development platform has never used Irix. etc. etc.
In the end, information technology is only useful in the extent that it makes people's lives easier or more entertaining in some way[1]. Whether the machine code came though gcc or msvc++, the end user does not care one whit. We are carpenters and stonemasons, only our raw materials are bits instead of wood or stone. So just pick the right tools for the job at hand, and leave the fanaticism at the door!
[1] Or to stick it to The Man. But that's besides the current point.
(I fully expect to get modded down for saying this stuff, but fuck it, I have 50 karma so I care not a fig for the slings and arrow of outrageous moderation.)
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
actually, it was me. guess what, i got a couple points left for trolls like you.
--- d'oh
"The GPL's definition, or the definition of its authors, of deriviatve work doesn't matter at all. What matters is what copyright law considers to be a derivative work, and therefor what the copyright holder on the original work can apply terms to."
So you're saying that part of the GPL is meaningless. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate it then?
"This is all clearly spelled out on the GNU pages, which no-one involved in this debate seems to have bothered to read."
I suspect that if there was litigation on this matter, the content of the GNU pages would not be admissible.
I agree. This was the reason why the State of California released the CSRG code under a (then) new type of license, the BSD license. UCB, CSRG and DARPA are publicly funded institutions. Both individuals and corporations paid for the code, so both should have equal access to it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
As stated in my post, I don't necessarily defend that it is "right", but it is definitely legal and if you ran a company and could take a tax deduction you would be very foolish not to do so. However, the DO still have to pay payroll taxes, benefits, etc. etc.. And if you do a little research you'll find it's not so difficult to lower your personal income taxes significantly.
--- Don't be a player hater: I meta-mod ALL negative mods as Unfair.
So you're saying that part of the GPL is meaningless. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate it then?
Its not meaningless. Copyright law says what a derived work is, the GPL says what you're allowed to do with a derived work above and beyond what copyright law allows, if you agree to the license. (That is the crucial difference between the GPL and EULAs, which many people fail to grasp or intentionally do not grasp.)
-RickHunter
I found the repeated references to a 'Software Ecosystem' in Mundies letter amusing. I am supposing this goes along with the use of the term 'viral' when refering to the GPL. I can just picture a healthy MS landscape, where everything works together in harmony.. little 'VB script' bees pollinate outlook encouraging the growth of communication ("uh.. hey everybody - Don't open any mail from me that asks for your help, or says I love you..). Text Farmers have heathly Word crops with only the occasional paper-clip infestation.
Then..
GPL WILDFIRE! Good lord! its heading towards our profits! The crops will be ruined! Won't somebody *please* think of the children!!
If only those damn university could leave well enough alone, and ONLY allow certain businesses access to source code, this could all be prevented. Lets not waste anymore public money on projects that can't be closed up and profited from by poor lil' old MS..
air and light and time and space
In other words, Microsoft is mad because it wants to "build" upon free software. Of course, once they build upon it, they will have to use their huge marketing force to crush anyone else who might want to use the same free software to create their own program in the name of "innovation".
You mean we're not? But. But. But. Emacs vs vi. Perl vs Python. Linux vs *BSD. We flame, we're ideological, if we're not flaming ideologues then what are we?
Best Slashdot Co
Mundie describes the software world as an ecosystem. But he failes to mention that one, and only one, species, Microsoft, dominates the ecosystem. The very barrier to a healthy ecosystem, with diversty, is the monopoly position of Microsoft.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
In this article, Dan Gillmor says:
A programmer using software licensed under the GPL also must publish new software based on it free of charge, with the source code available for anyone to use and modify.Is this correct? As I understand the terms of the GPL, the programmer of concern is not obligated to publish software based upon GPL'ed code free of charge, but only to provide the source code free of charge to anyone who does buy his derived work.
I just read Mr. Mundie's message; although I understand where he's coming from, I'm not sure the ecosystem he describes
can really pan out. For instance, it's important under his model that those who take from the "commons" give enough back,
but in 1999, for example, Microsoft paid $0 in federal income taxes--large companies in the U.S. do a very good job of
creating ingenious tax strategies, those are the breaks. But it does seem that there's a disturbing trend with our
society "socializing the risk, privatizing the profit," as Doonesbury put it. Now, I'm a software developer, not an
economist, but it seems to me that with Microsoft (and others) paying little or no taxes, hiring as many talented
academics as will take the offer for working within Microsoft Research et. al., then patenting as much as they can to
wall off new branches of technology...well, sheesh, how long can the commons sustain this sort of aggressive
over-grazing?
Turning to the GPL, I really like its emphasis on making software part of humanity's knowledge base, so that advances are
never lost, and even poor societies have access. This guaranteed openness points the way toward a computing ecosystem
like the medical sciences, where scientists not just in the U.S. but around the world share their findings and build on
each others' work. *Implementing* humanity's open knowledge store of medicine is an enormous field that pays many
millions of people, often quite well (my wife is a physician, so I have special insight there). The key word is
*implementing*. I think we'll see this open ecosystem for computing come to pass, thanks to the GPL and the advantages of
making software development a worldwide, not company proprietary, endeavor. This new world will probably be a little
weird for Microsoft at first, but I am confident that everyone will find their niche, and we'll all wonder why it took us
so long.
Did anybody else notice the incredibly poor grammar in the "Wide Open News" article on this topic? Consistant misuse of "its" for "it's" and other solicisms were prevelent. </rant>
Wow, this sounds like the DMCA. You define what you what something to mean and then if anybody disagrees you take your toys away from them even if the legal definition is different.
It was self-congratulatory back-patting on the part of the open source people. More constructive and useful discussion would have taken place had it not focussed on or revolved around MS and Mundie.
-Adam
This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
Similarly, there are some licensing models that effectively surrender the revenue-generating potential of software. Some of these would lead us back to the computing model of the 1970's, when users received from hardware companies software that was offered for free, but was provided at the expense of tying customers to a single hardware vendor.
...And some lead us to the current computing model, where users receive from a software company software that is offered for free, but is provided at the expense of tying customers to a single software vendor.
There is nothing sinister about this, it simply saves the trouble of having to use a made up word and defining that, instead.
Let me stress again, that if the terms of the GPL are violated, then the license terminates, and you only have those rights that you get under ordinary copyright law. The redefinition of the term 'derive' does not affect the definition WRT copyright law. If you were doing anything that would not be permitted under copyright law (such as redistribution), then you cannot continue to do so, since your license was terminated.
This is not a bug, it is a feature, and without it the GPL would not be enforceable.
If you are doing things that would be permitted under copyright, then you have no problems, even though your license under the GPL has terminated.
Remember, if you don't agree with the GPL's terms, conditions, and definitions, then you don't have to accept the license in the first place.
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
Correct me if i'm worng, but aren't the GPL and the Public Domain 2 different entities? If even GPL code gets placed into the PD, doesn't that mean that anyone can use it without restriction, just as if commercial software source code is placed into the public domain?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
http://www.tcp.com/~ether/articles/no-taxes.html
Dan Gillmore and others observed that Mundie came off like a true statesman, compated to Tiemann. There is a lot to be said for statesmanship indebates of this sort. There is the PR advantage, the potential to catch your oponatnt off guard, and the potential to build alliances. Mundie and Microsoft as a whole has generall looked reasonable and fair (to outsiders) in the ongoing OSS discussions of the last 6 months. This is potentially vary damaging to the OSS position. If we can't get it together, as was done somewhat back in the beginning when Microsoft launched their attach on OSS through Mundie's first speech 6 months ago, then we might as well pack it in because public opinion is the end all and be all of public debates.
While I completely disagree with Mundie's position, I aplaud him for his professional handling of the debates at this conference. I never thought I'd suggest using Microsoft employees as examples but i this case we should learn from Mundie's example.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Miguel Icaza have just post this at mono-list:
Hello guys!
I made a presetation at the O'Reilly Open Source conference on the Mono project, shortly after David Stutz talked about the Shared Source implementation of the ECMA C# and CLI that they will be releasing.
Interesting things from David's talk:
* The terms of that shared source license are still not ready, and will likely be different than those from Windows CE.
* They expect to have something by the middle of next year.
* He confirmed that it will just be the core of the system, and will contain a JIT.
He made my life easier by explaining to the audience what the CLI was, which was helpful as I did not have to go into too much detail on the remaining time.
We had a good talk about the CLI afterwards.
The slides for my talk are available on the Mono site (I believe I already sent a mail about this) but in case I didn't, just go to http://www.go-mono.com, and you will find the link to the talk slides.
There were some good questions, like how we will avoid patents if there are any on the ECMA specification. Our answer is that we will stick to use old technologies: things that have been documented or written about in the past in the various areas where the CLI and C# matter: intermediate languages, standards for type systems, traditional optimization, garbage collection in the ways that Java has done for multi-threaded operation, traditional compiler instruction selection.
For those cases where we incur in a speed penalty, we will research alternative ways to implement things to not infringe on their patents. This is particularly useful for those of you who are studying and need to write a thesis, as we have a research project you can work on.
I also got a chance to talk face to face to Sam, and we discussed a bit about possible ways of improving the runtime. One thing that came to mind is that it would be possible for someone to work on a number of projects: retargetting an existing Java compiler (I am familiar with Guavac, and seems good enough) to generate CIL instead of JVM byte codes.
I am now flying to Ottawa for the Linux Symposium. I will try to make releases of the runtime, the class libraries and the compiler on Sunday or Monday when I get back to Boston.
Best wishes,
Miguel.
useful links
Sorry for such a big submit.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Has anybody been doing the same? I've been watching the proceedings of the MS vs US trial and it's like watching a tennis game...back...fourth...them back....oh!, Fourth!
I wanna see some gore. Gimme that rackett...
---
I got nothin'.
Furthermore, copyrighted and GPL'd works are available in source form, which is the most useful form for creating derived works, but since Microsoft's products though copyrighted have hidden source code, even when their copyright expires no-one is likely to be able to make derived works, as the source code was never 'published'.
This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL.--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.