Slashdot Mirror
Four New Open Source Licenses
Russ Nelson writes "OSI has approved four new Open Source licenses. The X.Net is BSD with jurisdiction specified (note that RMS says that the GPL is not compatible with such licenses,) the New Artistic, currently that used by Perl (one paragraph added), the Sun Public License is Mozilla 1.1 with minor differences, and the Eiffel Forum License. We also modified the rationale for Open Source Definition clause 9 to remove the word "contaminate" referring to the action of the GPL."
Who cares if the OSI deigns to bless this or that license? Each license stands on its merits, regardless. As either a developer, or a user, it's the license itself you should be concerned about. This is just the pompous posturing of a self-proclaimed wanna-be authority: "I DEFINE blah blah blah, and so it is done". Phgfftht.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
With this many licenses around its getting a bit silly. A friend of mine runs the Scope HMVC project Scope over at Sourceforge and had to change the license slightly so as to enable work to pay him to do it. As more and more licenses come on board it just means more work for the lawyers. Isn't it time that there was a dynamic Open Source license which had a series of checkboxes that dumped out the license appropriate to your project at the end of it.
This is meant to be high tech, but our foundations are still paper.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
good, now how about making a p2p newtork license?
or would any of these work for such an app?
Website Hosting
The LGPL and GPL together cover a wide spectrum of possible uses, this growing number of OSS licenses just create confusion for the users of the software and it's a hell to manage.
I wish for a day when people will just standardise on the GPL/LGPL (or some other license). Just use one or two, not this insane mess...
He's an idiot. Face it. Why the hell anyone would license their code under the GPL is beyond me. The GPL is a horrible, restrictive (funny I should say that since RMS talks about how 'restrictive' other licenses are) license which gives RMS and his Nazis exclusive rights to prosecute violations of your licensing, and in many ways rights to your software itself.
Everyone is encouraged to look at licenses like the Artistic License (Written by Perl God Larry Wall) and the BSD License available at opensource.org.
Maybe if everyone ignores this GPL crap RMS will take his bullshit elsewhere.
You're quite right, you should always be concerned about the license itself. All that we do is tell people that a license grants a certain number of specific freedoms. That's all, but it's still worth doing.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
BTW (by the way), under whatever open source license it proceeds, the Open Source AI Mind is now teetering on the brink of being if not the first True AI then at least the first public domain True AI, because as of today's PD release, all the major algorithmic bugs have been worked out and it remains apperently only to adjust the various activation-level weights in the simulated neural net. You have read about it first here on Slashdot.
This is a good thing - we are working in an area were we are promoting freedom of choice. As developers licensing is not directly our area - having someone else make us some boilerplate licences (that themselves are open) is great.
Complaining about diversity is not constructive - that way leads Windows.
Carpe Daemon
I recommend being cautious about "releasing your code into the public domain". The problem is that there is *no* language in the Berne Convention whereby an author can bypass the lapsing of copyright which puts a work into the public domain. Some countries treat author's rights as inalienable, so they cannot put something in to the public domain.
Much better just to license your code under one of the licenses whose only restriction is "Don't remove this copyright."
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
nuke mecca!!
I'm very happy to hear this. AsI've said before for Mono x GNU fight, variety means freedom, freedom of choice.
If we had only one license, GPL, it would be horrible, we would have no choice but use GPL. But we have choices, we can choose between many kinds of FreeSoftware/OpenSource Licenses.
I prefer a hard argueing about which license is better, then a discussion about how nice would be to have at least an option for GPL
Let's fight, let's defend our point of view, our preferences. Let's build a comunity with variety and freedom of choice
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
A beawulf cluster of these licenses!
"My BSD cluster is faster than your Artistic cluster!"
"Oh yeah, well OSI approved me first!"
I am about to release some code for PalmOS, whilst I want to make it free for all to change and used I also want to ensure credit for myself and any following authors is maintained. However, having said this I wont be using the GPL mainly because of it's controlling and restrictive nature, so I feel these new licenses at the very least give us developers some other pre-written options.
as your ability to hire lawyers to send out nastygrams, litigate a few high profile examples and enforce it is. Even well funded firms like Msft still end up with over 1/4 violation rate, so you can imagine that licenses used by Joe Blow Software running from a dorm room will be next to meaningless.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Four more sides to every mindless licensing argument.
Sir -- that was a true work of art. I mean it.
Keep it up. What is your next project, if it's
not a secret?
As we all know, the GPL supports a communist philosophy. Now, what was it that G.W. Bush said last night about Nazism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism??? This is bad news for the FSF. I wonder if the FSF Headquarters will be bombed?
Yes, according to this article, there is indeed some risk. However, according to the same article, the FBI is aware of it, and are stepping up security. In any case, it'll be prudent to avoid planes, high-rises, subways and huge crowds.
I am so sick of listening to everybody spout opinions about MS admins who did'nt properly patch thier machines. IF you go to symantecs page on nimda they list the link to the MS patch needed for the virus. If you go the page listed it clearly states that the patch is not needed if you have service pack 2 already installed. This is untrue! My machine was up to date with all patches and service packs and was still infected. In conclusion, please complain about how microsoft sucks but keep in mind two things: 1) IF Linux ever got a decent market share viruses would be written for it. These people write viruses to cause damage, then why write it for a small portion of the market? 2) At least some admins were not at fault this time.
The reason is simple: they want developers. There seem to be more people coming out of the woodwork to contribute to a fledgling GPL project than for any other type. This is especially true for new projects with few developers.
Its also a guaranteed way to get users. If your project is useful or fun at all, then the license
will attract at least a few eyes. Users certainly like to recieve GPL programs- even if they never download the binaries.
Ironically- most sucessfull large OSS projects fall under less restrictive yet gpl compatible licenses. (Xf86, perl, python, apache, postgresql, moz, libpng)
On the other hand- Gnome, KDE, samba, gcc, glibc, vim, emacs, and the linux kernel themselves are exceptions. The desktop environments are easy to explain- theyre a collection of small projects. And the linux kernel has exceptions- such as for loadable modules.
Personnaly I license my stuff under the GPL or LGPL. Ive been burned by shareware with small bugs that I was dying to fix- so I try not to make anything that contributes to that model (no bsd/artistic). I just want people to have the source- and I dont know hov that could offend anyone.
>had a series of checkboxes that dumped out the license appropriate
>to your project at the end of it
The Raptor licenses do that. Noone uses them (ok, and if I'd put them all in one place it might help
Roughly as follows. Add up the clauses used to specify a license as "Raptor n"
Section 0:
You may do anything you damned well feel like with this source code, save as restricted under later clauses.
Section 1:
Any derived work must retain the copyright notices contained herein.
Section 2:
Any derived work must be under this license.
Section 4:
You must make the source code available in the same manner as the binary distribution for no more than duplication and shipping costs.
Section 8:
No derived work may link to any code not assimilible by this license.
Section 16:
No derivative work may be released under a license which restricts the ability to combine software under differing licenses in any manner.
Section 32:
Any distributions of source code or binaries must be made without modification: all modifications must be patches to source code unless written permission is obtained from the copyright holder.
Section 64:
No modified version may be distributed under the same name as this software.
Section 128:
Any advertising or packaging for this product must contain the acknowledgement
"RMS is a nunu-head" [phrase will vary]
Section 256:
The authors have realized that their actions conflicted with the terms stated in the original license. The original license was Raptor [number], while the correct and binding license is Raptor [number] with the following additional provisions
[provisions]
Section 512:
Changes to this license may be made by the following entities in the following manner:
[governance terms]
Notes:
Raptor 0 is all but public domain (it doesn't assign the copyright).
Raptor 1 is pretty much BSD/X
The GPL is pretty close to Raptor 15.
Clause 16 is a poison pill to prevent assimilation by the GPL for those who object to its proprty of only taking code from other licenses but not sharing back.
32 is Pine-ish
64 is Artistic License-ish
128 is old BSD
256 is for situations such as where software purports to release under GPL, but from day 1 had dependencies upon closed source software. The current Lyx license is like this.
I'm perionally partial to a stock 145, but . . .
:)
hawk, who reluctantly left the phrase "including coordinating nuclear attacks on Australia, plotting the overthrow of your government, or exterminating an endangered species" out of clause 0.
I'm sure it's unedited. The Israeli site it's on had it on a page with a bunch of similar pictures, with no reference to the clothes.
It looks to me (not the original poster) like a real picture of non-protesters. Where are the signs?
Supposedly (I can't vouch for it, and the site is pretty right-wing, but I still bet it's true) the picture is of Palestinians in Lebanon celebrating the WTC attack. "celebrations" had too many characters for the sig so I went with "protests" until I can think of a more accurate word of appropriate length.
According to Libération, the explosion was due to an accident, rather than terroristm.
A "work based on the Program" hereinafter means either the Program itself or a work containing a portion or the totality of the Program either with or without modifications, translations, transliterations, or transformations. (Hereinafter, the term "modification" shall include, without limitations, the last four terms of the previous sentence excluding the term "or" unless "or" is used to refer to a boolean function applied to modify the Program or any part of it.) Each licensee is addressed as "you", as in the statement "You are a licensee". (The statement "You are not a licensee" will hereinafter have no logical meaning.)
Thankfully, the X.Net license does not do this. What it has is a Choice of Law provision which is drastically different. It specifies that no matter where a dispute is litigated, the court must apply California state law and United States (federal) law.
I can see where this could potentially lead to problems, however -- courts generally (especially state courts)don't like to have to use another state's laws in their own courtrooms. Also, what happens if California decides to enact the UCITA?
All in all, the X.Net license is a model of simplicity and clarity.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
This whole licensing thing is turning into a mess. If I want to write an application and re-use bits and pieces of a dozen other packages which are "Open Source approved" but use different licenses, I'm basically out of luck because I would be violating every license by combining the code and adding a bunch of my own. So much for "free as in speech" and the idea that Open Source helps reduce 'wheel reinventing.' This situation is especially annoying, of course, if the program I'm writing is solely a personal project without any commercial intent whatsoever. Is there a good answer to this scenario?
write some code already!
Also, from http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html#9:
Then, they go on to say:
A single work? This sort of thing always chaps my hide. Let's say that your program will operate with any libc other than GNU's. Arguably this means you should have written things differently, but let's go on.
Now, it's my understanding that any package which will not function without a GPL'd package must be GPL itself. If this is true, then your program now must be GPL'd, even if you don't include Gnu libc in your distribution.
Am I correct? And if I am, how is this not contamination?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
... is that the developer only has to understand the license he works with, but the users have to understand them all. The main question user's have being, "Can I make copies of this?"
I wanted to burn my friend a copy of my RedHat 7.1 CDs, but I had to break a warning sticker when I first opened the 7.1 package, and there was a click-through EULA when I installed, so I'm assuming there's non-free stuff on there. I ended up *giving* him the CD's (I don't even know if THAT'S legal), Install Guide, even the receipt, and I swore allegiance to Debian GNU/Linux, and their "Use non-free software? [y][n]" during install. For me, as a user, the GPL is peace of mind. I don't have time to research the 2000 licenses out there, sorry. I know the GPL, I know the BSD, and I know the MS-proprietary licenses. I don't have time to learn the intricacies of all the other licenses.
Multiple licenses are both a strength (diversity), and a pain (diversity). At least it's all available in English for me, linguistic diversity would be insane. What I mean by this, is that diversity is good, but it can interfere with order and progression if used improperly, or if it's diversity for diversity's sake. And *one* non-free piece of software on a distro can destroy the freedoms the others provide, if, for example, that license doesn't allow copying. And then we'll end up pirating stuff, just like we did when we were Windows users.
... is that the developer only has to understand the license he works with, but the users have to understand them all. The main question users have being, "Can I make copies of this?"
I wanted to burn my friend a copy of my RedHat 7.1 CDs, but I had to break a warning sticker when I first opened the 7.1 package, and there was a click-through EULA when I installed, so I'm assuming there's non-free stuff on there. I ended up *giving* him the CD's (I don't even know if THAT'S legal), Install Guide, even the receipt, and I swore allegiance to Debian GNU/Linux, and their "Use non-free software? [y][n]" during install. For me, as a user, the GPL is peace of mind. I don't have time to research the 2000 licenses out there, sorry. I know the GPL, I know the BSD, and I know the MS-proprietary licenses. I don't have time to learn the intricacies of all the other licenses, sorry. If you're close to GPL, I'll treat you like GPL. If you're like BSD, I'll treat you like BSD.
Multiple licenses are both a strength and a pain. What I mean by this, is that diversity is good, but it can interfere with order and progression if used improperly, or if it's diversity for diversity's sake. And *one* non-free piece of software on a distro can destroy the freedoms the others provide, if, for example, that license doesn't allow copying (can't legally burn my RedHat CD because of RealPlayer or whatever). And then we'll end up pirating stuff, just like we did when we were Windows users. And personally, I think that one reason Linux is superior *IS* the ethical factor built right in via the GPL. Ethical Software! Who woulda thunk it? Very cool.
Godwin! You said the magic word therefore you lose. This means that the GPL is the most legally sound and best license ever. Try being more careful next time.
This is the best post on this topic thus far
Why on earth is a story about the OSI under the heading of "GNU's Not UNIX"?
:)
I know that a lot of people consider RMS's requests to not confuse Free Software and Open Source to be pedantic, and that confusion is possible because so much software is both Free and Open Source.
But, come on! When you're talking about the organizations themselves, there's really no excuse for mixing them up. If slashdot can't even get this basic stuff right, how can we expect the mainstream media not to screw it up?
May I suggest either an "Open Source" or a "Licensing" category.
If you're not careful, you'll be sorry when RMS starts using the term GNOSI/Linux.
Having a look at this page, it makes me wonder whether Netscape should have put a stricter license on the MPL.;)
Well, the problem is that there *is* no good solution. The people who have chosen different licenses have done so because they wish the software to be distributed with the particular set of restrictions. If the licenses are compatible, then you have no problem. But how do you determine this? It's not obvious.
If you're not going to distribute the software, you have no problem. But I think you want to be able to give the software away without charging for it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist