Slashdot Mirror
WINE May Change To LGPL
isolation wrote to us about the proposal to change the Wine license to LGPL. Jeremey's got his ideas and reasons in the e-mail there, and it makes sense - Jeremy's a smart guy. There's a call for opinions on this as well, so read through it, and offer commentary.
If it is a change that will protect the future of Wine but keeping in the spirit of open-source software then fair enough.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Im a bit curious, does anyone know what that "other propiatory" stuff he is talking about, but cannot reveal any further, is ? It sounds to me that we could be talking Lindows, but I dont know that much about Lindows to know how it "emulates/wraps" Win32 API.
Any other ideas ?
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
But wine will always be a bad idea regardless of the license. You can never keep up with MS changing and adding to the API all the time. You have to change with every new release of popular programs (e.g. Office). And it doesn't do too well as a porting lib for win programs because u still have to have code to be bug compatible w both systems (win32 and wine). It even breeds such horrible children like the horribly insecure Lindows.
This is exactly why copyleft is IMPORTANT to keeping free and open source projects free and open and why the X.11 or other so called "commercial exploitation friendly" licenses are indeed very bad. I am glad to see the people behind WINE understand this although it is a shame they had to learn this lesson as a result of abuse by others.
I dont think that stands for the Ladies GPL. Can someone post some info on what this LGPL is?
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
No ones linked to them yet this article and this article give a bit more information on what LGPL is and why there is an issue.
Although I understand the reasoning this sort of issue is what will drive companies away from adopting Linux. I'm already finding that I have to read the small print for every damn piece of software/code that I use just in case I end up using something which I will have to pay for or be prohibited from using if I use it commercially. Pain in the backside.
It seems to me, that they really want Wine contributors to express their opinion, not the general public. They might be interested to hear from users, too, but it doesn't state that anywhere.
I think its important to know what "with some recent events I cannot disclose" is exactly. Wine is great stuff and its been getting better. I have not contributed to wine publically because of its current liscence. And for once, knowing the windows world as well as the linux I think I could actuallly make a decent contribution, but I dont want code I freely provide ending up in LinDows, or Transgamings WineX9I know it is different, for the moment but how long ?)
Any liscence change could not suoperceede the liscence under which the existing code tree was obtained, so development into a proprietary product could contine on those note, is a smart guy he knows this, thats what scares me, what does he know or see in the future of Wine that could endanger it at this point, Corel trying to say its all their code now because he is their employee (this is an example, dont spaz)
Its funny how most of the people wanting to "commercialize Wine, have ended up with their code avaiable, WHY ? Its just not ready for prime time as a proprietay product on its own they still NEED developemt beyoned their internal capabilities, Jeremy must know this too......
Once agaian what looms on the horizon for Wine ?
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:51:04PM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
:-) Other scenarios I can imagine: drivers for hardware -
> Yeah, that could work. But I still don't understand your objections about
> the proprietary drivers: LGPL would work just fine with that. What's your
> concern?
Look at the copy protection stuff that transgaming have added to their
tree: they licensed it and thus quite likely can't publish the source
for this - but I still want to see this in the binary only releases
they make
think of a company that wants to port their software to Linux via wine
but continue using a dongle or something like that: the dongle code
is quite likely to go into the kernel itself (and may need some support
for that by the wineserver).
Ciao
Jörg
-----------
PS Since I have been modded down on previous posts, I have been slowing learning how to be a good Karma citizen from other examples on Slashdot.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
CEO was actually right.
Free/open software community is a big mess -- but there's nothing wrong with it! I'd rather have anarchy than soul crushing corporate order and discipline.
The owls are not what they seem
For those unfamiliar, you can read the LGPL at the following URL:
t ml
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.h
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Not really.
W2K and WinXP are already as stable -- if not more stable -- than the current 2.4.x kernel series.
The owls are not what they seem
after reading the email and then finding the wine license it makes a lot of sense to me why they would want to switch to LGPL. As someone who works with computers and has seen the myriad of license and contractual negotiations that are caused by corporate use of software, i've always wondered how free or open software would survive, and always had thought the apache and lgpl licence schemes gave the most advantage to software companies in promoting/using said software while still making a dollar with their enhancements.
No matter what we want, if there is a company behind a product, it needs to make money.
What does this help with? LGPL (library, I am assuming) would allow all of the propriatary software to be ported via wine, but would force everyone to keep wine itself open. I personally think this is a good idea, because from my reading of the current wine licence (which was a while back, so it is a bit fuzzy) it seemed a bit BSDish (which isn't neccessaraly bad), but if you are trying to keep wine open (iow, no TCP/IP stack sniching, or anything of the sort) the LGPL seems better for wine development.
My 1/(5^2*2) of a dollar.
I've read a bit of the discussion following the suggestion. And what I really like is that the discussion was not a holy-license-war kind of flame, but rather a "techincal" discussion of wether LGPL would allow different enhancments to wine to be done (like the CD-Protection-support of WineX).
For those of you following the development, this was brought up because of Transgaming, several weeks ago. Although, at that time, the plan was GPL.
Personally, I'm not bothered by it. They have a right to do as they wish with the project they created, and LGPL prolly won't harm to much else.
Derek Greene
I've had some commercial dealings around software which had been GPLed, and from my experience in the world out there, OSS licenses really scare companies, both big and small. I believe that the LPGL is a great half-way house, in that it allows people to create software that makes the most of the platform and libraries which are already available, without necessarily "tainting" (this it the word used whenever I've been involved with license discussions) the code that, in the end, the company wants to sell, and make money from. Although I'd like to see more sofware being free, I think that driving the platform will produce more software full stop, and some of it will be free, which is a start.
The LGPL allows commercial activities on a non-commercial platform, and encourages commercial companies to feed back improvements into the LGPLed code which will improve the quality of the platform. Wine is a major project, and if it moves to LGPL, this should help the license, and by extension, the platform, as well as the availability of software. I'd definitely vote "yes".
I think a change to an LGPL-like license should be done in such a way that commercial efforts like Lindows are still economically feasible (i.e., that they can add value in terms of packaging and add-ons), but that changes and bug fixes to the core WINE functionality are fed back into WINE. If that can be accomplished, then I think a change of WINE to LGPL is the right thing to do. If the WINE license becomes so restrictive as to make any commercial distributions of WINE-based systems uninteresting (because they exclude, for example, commercial add-ons from being bundled), then I think it would harm WINE.
If they chose the LGPL, there still would be the
issue whether to choose v2.0 or v2.1
The latter is called "Lesser" instead of "Library"
and calls itself deprecated due to RMS objections
on non-GPL software.
Yes, read non-GPL, not non-open, not even non-free.
RMS wrote the GPL to exactly achieve the aim that
all software has to be free as in GPL, and so he
invented (or copied?) the viral/tainting thing.
/me votes for MIT or LGPLv2.0
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
When commercial vendors want to add functionality to their product that is already available, they pay to use that code. It worked great for id Software lisencing their game engines. I could see such a royalties system benefit both parties, as the commercial vendor would have a more robust product, and the WINE project would get valuable funding to support it's open-source endeavors.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
What will this do to Transgaming? They will no longer be able to make changes and keep them to themselves - kind of seems like it destroys their business model.
I guess the only thing they could do is to for Wine themselves and never touch Codweavers code again - but that means that they now have to deal with a completely larger set of problems than they currently are.
Personally I think this is bad for Wine - Transgaming has already given so much back to the Wine project it is not even funny (including the fact that Transgaming is now looking to sponsor some portions of Wine progress) - but this switch is going to create some animosity between the two.
Maybe they should have a dual license - kind of like mysql, where it is GPL, but some companies can license the code and they don't have to contribute back.
It is a tough situation - but let's hope that forward progress does not get stopped because of it!
Derek
Same thing is happening Wine as has been happening
to BSD for years. Get these vampires that forever
suck the life out of projects and do little or
nothing in return for the host.
I'm not a programmer myself, besides some basic scripting and such here and there, so take this with an appropriate grain of salt.
Do people write code in order to write good code and improve the state of computing, or do they do it in order to coerce other programmers into helping along?
It seems to me that the BSD license is representative of the first ideal, and the GPL of the second.
--saint
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm quite familiar with the LGPL. Contrary to the Slashdot headline, however, Jeremy is not proposing a move to the LGPL, but to an LGPL-style license.
It was about time wine became free like free beer!!
GNU is more like "Feel free to drink form this well, but please don't steal the bucket."
Seems to me like the GPL is "feel free to drink from this well, but if you make pasta with the water everyone gets some."
It's impossible to steal the bucket with either license.
For example, I use OpenBSD at home. Say I wrap up OpenBSD and call it "FooSecure - The World's Most Secure OS" and sell it for a hundred dollars a copy, without making anything but cosmetic changes and closing the source.
Does openbsd.org cease to exist? Of course not.
I'm not trying to be a troll, here, but I honestly don't understand how people think the GPL is so free.
(I know, that sounds like "I'm not trying to be a troll, but Emacs suX0rs!". Sorry.)
--saint
It's bad enough to /. a site, we've all done it before. But to have a site that basically says "Email Me" is just plain cruel.
/. an email server? :)
Could be the first time we
Do people write code in order to write good code and improve the state of computing, or do they do it in order to coerce other programmers into helping along?
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one. I want good code, but I want that code to be available for me in the same way that I made it available. If it's improved, but locked up in a proprietary product, what good does it do me as a programmer?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I'm not trying to be a troll, here, but I honestly don't understand how people think the GPL is so free.
Or why people think that having a copy of code and closing it kills the open source version. Usually, closed source copies become niche products.
For example, there is a closed-source SSL version of Apache. I bet most people use modssl.
For example, I use OpenBSD at home. Say I wrap up OpenBSD and call it "FooSecure - The World's Most Secure OS" and sell it for a hundred dollars a copy, without making anything but cosmetic changes and closing the source.
Oh, I just thought of a better example. Does the version of OpenBSD that Darren Reed released after that whole ipf debacle have any effect at all on the "original" OpenBSD? I find it tough to believe that Theo is exactly worried, whether Reed's software comes with the source or not.
Oh, and whoever keeps modding my posts Flamebait, GFY. Thanks. It's gonna take a lot more mod points than you've got to get rid of my +1.
--saint
The only resonsibility anyone has under the LGPL is is to provide the modified LGPLed part of Wine to those who;
The only problem I see with this is if a company makes substantial changes to the LGPLed source, and they are unwilling/incapable to seperate the parts they want to keep for themselves into little propriatory modules, they would have an attitude problem.
Since patches to the LGPLed parts could be used as hooks to link in the propriatory modules, it does not seem like a dire problem for a half decient programmer. After all, they get the rest of Wine/Winelib for no dollar cost or effort.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
for the record -
I've had winXP crash so many times it's not funny. Yes, i've seen the BSOD - it doesn't even offer recovery. and i've seen it more than once. how long have i been running XP? a week. All signed drivers, all stable hardware. Still - crashes...i think I just abuse it too much with the programs I run. It isn't as stable as i've found 2K to be. but 3 BSODs in a week, and having to deal with it's 'pretty' colors doesn't make a happy user. me.
on the other hand, i've abused linux mandrake pretty well - and on the same box - so you can't claim hardware is all that's crashing XP. Sure - i can crash processes in linux - but it's pretty hard to take down the kernel. Just my 2c.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one. I want good code, but I want that code to be available for me in the same way that I made it available. If it's improved, but locked up in a proprietary product, what good does it do me as a programmer?
As a programmer, nothing. As a user, maybe or maybe not a lot. It all depends.
The BSD guarantees freedom for all without limitations on the 'all' or how the 'all' uses it.
Check out Apache for a good example of how the BSD license triumphs. IBM has given a lot of code to Apache even while having their own closed-source version (IHS).
Do you use SunOS? I have one Sun box at work while I have one FreeBSD at work and three at home.
BTW, are there more closed-source UNIX installations or open-source UNIX installations? I bet there are more open-source installations.
Care to back this up? I think not as there is really no basis for this comment. My experience has been the opposite. Although I've never used XP - and have no plans to do so.
Of course maybe you're a logged in troll and I'm talking to myself...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
University of Michigan has whole labs full of Suns and many of their servers are Suns too. They just started adding in some linux machines. At work we have lots of Sun boxes. Sorry, but the "Do you use SunOS?" argument is pretty silly.
The enemies of Democracy are
Your example isn't what happens in the real world. usaully a company or person will convince some folks to spend time doing something "for the good of the project". Well, often times it just turns out that effort was just to bolster their fork they have been working on. When their stuff is done, and they have what they came for, they slam the door and turn their backs on the project developers.
I think there are two companies doing this to Wine right now. Has Wine sufficiently benefitted from these relationships to merit holding a license that encourages more parties that act in the same manner?
It looks like some people who have been donating time and effort freely for years disagree. They are the people who keep a project alive, and who's
opinions I'd be apt to go with.
To me it always seemed the strangest part of the LGPL license was a requirement to either use shared object libraries or to supply the object files so your propprietary software can be re-linked with a new version of libfoo.a.
Is there an intermediate license which requires that your changes to a library's code be shared, but don't require you to supply the user with the ability to "improve" the program you ship?
The concept of open software and it's use with a corporate, or business, structure is new and many people/companies don't really know what to do with it. We don't know which license works best in a corporate environment. Is that the point? Maybe, maybe not. If Open Software is going to have widespread use and acceptance, it's THE point.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but personally it would improve my life, both at work and home, if Open Software WAS a staple. I prefer Linux as both a workstation and personal PC OS. It would be helpful if mgmt wasn't resistant to it's use in the workplace and more of the "warm and fuzzy" apps (games, some of the streaming media kinda junk, blah, blah, blah) were available for Linux at home.
So from that standpoint, we need to see which of the Open licenses really works. Being able to establish a revenue model is key for Open Software to really get going in the business world. Right now that points to a BSD-style license.
Yeah, we may have MS "snitching" the BSD TCP/IP stack, but we also now have lote of APPLE users on a BSD-style OS! Who would have thought that was possible a few years ago? That's real progress and it's also bringing the benefits of Open Software to the masses. I'd think even RMS would support that, although he may choke on the BSD license.
On the flip side: IBM is pushing Linux, but how much of that is media/hype based? I'd think the BSD method of development is much more to IBMs liking, not too mention the license! Yet here they are...
Anyway, I wouldn't mind buying a copy of "wine" (or whatever it might be sold as) if I had greater confidence it would work properly and had better documentation. I've played with Wine, and I had some things working, but not everything I needed to make the effort worthwhile. I WAS frustrated with the lack of doc, which contrary to what some people say, I usually find plenty of with the Open Software I typically use (Apache, Tomcat, etc).
I'm NOT ragging on the folks who write Wine, they've done a great job, but I DO think that Wine would benefit from a BSD or LGPL style license.
If anyone cares...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
Now, the FSF may argue that it would be illegal for third parties to link my non-GPL code with readline, but this doesn't sound very feasible, and it isn't what is stated in the license.
(Another thing: Now suppose I merely claimed to have written greedline. It'd cost you $10,000,000 to call my bluff)
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Sorry, but the "Do you use SunOS?" argument is pretty silly.
Why? You may have a lot of Sun boxes. We do too. How old are they? Where I work I have yet to see anything past an Ultra 5. We are adding Linux boxes but apparently no Suns.
BTW, do you think there are more open-source boxes or closed-source boxes in the world of UNIX?
The LGPL was originally called the "Library" GPL, and then later on was backronymed to the "Lesser" GPL by RMS.
:)
Its purpose is to allow closed-source applications to use open-source libraries without becoming "infected" by copyleft source publication requirements.
So if you write a C program that links against the LGPL-licenced glibc, you are not forced to adopt copyleft for your program.
If, however, you modify the actual library code, you are required to publish source to your changes.
If WINE were to be LGPL-ed, you could write a program that would run on both Windows and [any x86 OS with a WINE port] by linking against WINE. Your program could be licenced however you wish, as the act of linking against an LGPL-ed resource does not incurr the responsibility of copyleft.
However, if you discovered that you really needed the as-yet WINE-unimplemented Windows API call foo(), and then did the work to implement the foo() call in WINE, the LGPL would force you to release the source to those changes to the public.
This is, IMHO, a REALLY REALLY good idea. The nature of the WINE project is that once a certain core of the API is ported, the rest of the work is really very modular, but very broad. Certain companies have been completing work on various APIs needed to get their pet projects working (like core gaming APIs) and then refusing to turn these changes back in to the core WINE project for "competitive" reasons - ie, if they have the only working version of these core APIs, then only they can publish software that uses these APIs (until someone re-does the port work and releases the API in a Free manner)
Result: uncecessary duplication of effort, and bad feelings all 'round.
I don't contribute to WINE, so I don't get a vote (which is as it should be) but I'm sure as hell cheering for the LGPL people.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Someone who takes and closes source from a BSD-style license is saying is that they don't believe future changes made by the community are worth opening their source for. If that opinion is justified, then the project is screwed. The project is in trouble because the community is not producing -- a problem unlikely to be fixed by changing to an LGPL style license.
What's a sig?
Where I work I have yet to see anything past an Ultra 5.
Which has nothing to do with the deployment of Solaris. You can get upgrades without buying new hardware, you know.
BTW, do you think there are more open-source boxes or closed-source boxes in the world of UNIX?
I don't think either, since I don't have access to data that would tell me. What good would making a random guess do?
The enemies of Democracy are
There is a problem with so many of the open source license that we use. They are tailored to "freeware". There needs to be more emphasis on creating new license that open up the code, yet insure that the person or company has a way to make money from it, and make money from making programs that shared libaries.
This world is ran with money. People do need to eat. And there needs to be more emphasis on open source, and less on free software.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Do people write code in order to write good code and improve the state of computing, or do they do it in order to coerce other programmers into helping along?
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one.
Not necessarily. Many companies are afraid to use GPL-products, they want to have the option to ship a version that is linked to their own software or add a feature that is licensed from a third party or whatever. These are perfectly valid uses that are disallowed by the GPL (the second use may clash with LGPL).
These things can be done with BSD, so companies can actually use it. Any changes they make that are useful to others will usually be put in the main tree so:
1. There are fewer diffs between the open version and their product->easier merges
2. Their code is tested and audited and expanded and debugged. This is a big reason for using open source.
3. Why not?
4. It will be good PR.
5. It may actually make them feel better (especially the programmers).
BSD-licensed code will thus probably get you more good code. If someone does create a closed version with features you like, open source programmers can just copy the features. They haven't taken away anything from you, but may have filled a need that open source developers did not fill. What's wrong with more options?
I don't really understand why people get so upset when there might be a chance that someone uses the code he gives away for free for things he doesn't like. This is the same paranoia that the RIAA/MPAA exhibit: "if we don't put some überprotection on our stuff we will get screwed". They don't care if many legitimate and important uses are no longer possible, like making back-ups or listening to music on my computer. Strangely enough the Slashdot crowd is enraged over this, we tell them to be more trusting and to find ways to make money without creating a policestate. On the other hand it is okay with many of us if programmers make legitimate and important uses impossible with the license they choose for their IP.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
I dorked with transgaming's wine not too long ago. As I recall, I was absolutely sickened to learn that it could not be installed system-wide ala the REAL wine, but had to be installed individually into each users home directory.
Requiring each user to install it separately on a system (multiple installs of the same damn app) is BOGUS. Have they changed their ways or is it still broken this way? You want to use it and play a game? Well install the big-ass app into your home directory AND install the frickin' game there too. Hundreds of wasted megabytes.
IS there a way to install it system-wide (/usr/local) so any user can use it instead of wasting lots and lots of HDD space on duplicated installs?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
/.
Nice trolling, Matt. And I mean that honestly; I think there is a difference between provoking conversation and, well, you know, the typical slashdot troll.
Anyway, I don't know about the rest of the world, but I am not real concerned about the relative "freedom" of licenses. I simply do not want people to steal my work without compensation. For me, sufficient compensation is that the person who benefits from my work releases their enhancements or modifications back to me. Is this so much to ask? That's what the GPL is about for a great many of the people who use it... simply an attempt at fair value exchange.
If somebody else objects to this, they are *free* to NOT USE MY WORK.
As far as "freedom" is concerned - well, if anyone can figure out how to get any I'd like to have some too.
--Charlie
And...you have no problem with M$ spying on you, telling you what software you can copy, what you can and cannot do to your hardware, etc. Send me all your vitals too, since you have no problem with that: full name, place of birth, date of birth, social security number (or equivalent), credit card numbers, personal likes and dislikes, sexual proclivities, shopping habits, what places you frequent and the times.
I assure you I am no worse than Gates and Co so you can feel happy and complacent about giving me all your info. Also, you need to contact be to get my OK to upgrade/change any of your computer hardware in the future.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I just think this contribution to the Wine lists is especially interesting, and deserves to be quoted here:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> It's about time. Putting Wine under the xGPL is the best way
> I can think of to ensure its future. The xGPL makes it possible
> for competitors to cooperate for their common good - which is pretty amazing.
This is a fundamental point which we haven't had a chance of discussing
last time as we argued over silly future (unlikely) possible changes in
copyright law.
One important argument was that building a thriving economic environment
around Wine is essential for its success.
Everybody agreed on this premise, IIRC.
The argument followed that BSD license is better for creating such an
environment, and hence better for Wine, since more business will
contribute more code back.
This, I'm afraid, is entirely false.
I argue that in fact, the BSD license is a STRONG DETERANT for businesses
to contribute code back, while the LGPL provides an INCENTIVE.
Note that I do not care, for the purpose of this discussion, about
businesses which don't intend to contribute code back. They are of no help
to Wine, and thus irrelevant (if not a little harmful, for reasons so
eloquently explained by Alexandre).
A BSD license is a STRONG DETERANT for a business to contribute code
back. The reason for this is that they have no guarantee that another
business will not improve a little the code, and thus get a competitive
advantage. Or that other companies will not use that code on top of the
code they wrote but not released, and thus again, get that edge. This is a
fantastic _deterant_ for releasing code back. In fact, Gav validated
exactly this point when he tried to argue for the BSD license last time:
But there are companies out there who will benefit significantly
from commercial use of this code, and who can afford to sponsor a
portion of the development cost. Until such a sponsorship happens,
we cannot apply the WineHQ license to that code.
In other words, they needed that code. They invested some money do get
it. They are happy with the results. Why not release the code? They have
what they needed in the first place? The reason is clear -- it cost them
to get there, they can not aford to bring everybody there for free. I can
100% understand that. But if the code was under the LGPL, it would not
matter, because even if they brought everybody there, other companies
could not step ahead of them, since if they did, they themselves could
have used that code.
In other words, TG could have kept Direct3D proprietary, released
everything else back under LGPL, and they could have _known_ they still
have the competitive edge in the D3D work! This is why the LGPL is in fact
an _incentive_ for such colaboration.
Bottom line is clear: as the project matures and becomes more useful, the
deterant of contributing code back from a business perspective is going to
greatly increase, while at the same time, the incentive under the LGPL
would have also increased.
In economic terms, for Wine, one spells death, the other, life.
--
Dimi.
BSD-licensed code will thus probably get you more good code. If someone does create a closed version with features you like, open source programmers can just copy the features.
Unless, of course, they tie it in with some patented or otherwise encumbered code that is not legal to duplicate.
They haven't taken away anything from you, but may have filled a need that open source developers did not fill. What's wrong with more options?
Human nature is what's wrong. I don't trust my fellow man enough to assume that he will be as forthcoming with his additions to my code as I was with the original code. Therefore, if he wants to have the advantages of my code, he is going to contribute his advantages back to me.
I don't really understand why people get so upset when there might be a chance that someone uses the code he gives away for free for things he doesn't like.
I don't care what they use my code for, as long as they give back.
On the other hand it is okay with many of us if programmers make legitimate and important uses impossible with the license they choose for their IP.
What 'legitimate and important uses' require that you can't give back your source? I can't think of one.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Ok, here's a way that should work...
/usr/local/wine_drive
/usr/local/wine_drive
/usr/local/wine_drive
create
chmod it 777 so everyone has access
install wine / transgaming's wine
for each user, create symlink ~/.wine ->
~/.transgaming - >
Hey presto, one central wine installation everyone uses.
If you follow the link you will see that what type of license is finally selected is still very much up in the air. An X11-style license/mixed license is one of the latest suggestions. X11-like license for the kernel side, so if any closed stuff must be included for functionality it can but any dlls/libs beyond that would be LGPL.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
BTW, do you think there are more open-source boxes or closed-source boxes in the world of UNIX?
Depends on whether you call Mac OS X closed source because of Quartz, or open source because of Darwin.
I'd be more than willing to bet that Apple's got the highest marketshare in the Unix workstation market now by far.
--saint
Seems to me like the GPL is "feel free to drink from this well, but if you make pasta with the water everyone gets some."
This may be a good analogy for the GPL, but with Wine, the movement is primarily to support the LGPL. Modifying your analogy, this would mean that you are free to use the bucket to make just about any type of pasta, but you must allow anyone access to the bucket, even if you've modified it.
Perhaps this stems from my lack of understanding of LGPL, but I don't see how this really keeps anybody who is determined to take their proprietary mods to themselves. If you need foo() and foo() is broken or missing in the library, you just create a wrapper library which has your implementation of foo and just hands off to WINE for everything else. It might not be a bad way in general to deal with the incompatibilities of WINE and WIN32.
It seems to m that at best it gives the engineers (who tend to understand better the contributions of the community) an excuse to keep their employers from freeloading. Or it may cause some people with vestigal senses of fairness to balk. The intent of GPL and LGPL, as I read them, is to create a kind of social contract between the creators of software and people who would modify and redistribute it, that ensures fairness through the mechanism of granting certain inalienable rights to the user. To work around the limitations of LGPL would require a deliberate act to disrupt this fairness, something which people might scruple not to do where they might not scruple given a license had in implicit invitation to do so.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm not aware of any "legitimate and important uses" that have been made "impossible" by the GPL or LGPL.
--Charlie
A pre-requisite for a market economy is a balance between private property and a "commons." I know I really suck at making these arguments, but imagine how far the printing press would have gotten if anyone who wanted to write a book had to license a language as well as an alphabet before they could write anything. Then imagine what would have happened if some company launched a lawsuit claming that they had a patent on the concept of a written language. Then, another conglomerate sues saying that they own the IP relating to stories about man-vs-man and man-vs-nature.
The GPL is the best thing out there for creating a "digital commons."
What I think, and I may be wrong, it that the current rush toward the everything-is-ownable, IPphilia attitude of today is moving our society towards intellectual feudalism; where it will be impossible to create or partake in many endeavors without pledging alleigance to some sort of multinational conglomerate that will 1) fend off spurious IP claims that, even if unjust, are impossible to defend against as a private individual, and 2) work out the necessary cross-licensing agreements with the other multinationals in order to use the appropriate "property." This seems to be antithetical to the idea of a 'free market,' as well as to most of the ideals of the last two hundred years of western thought.
Again, I may be wrong. I'm getting tired of feeling like a reactionary anarchist everyday I read the lastest "X"-corporation-has-a-patent-on-breathing on slashdot.
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
My experience has been the opposite. Although I've never used XP
Er... this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, I'm afraid. On what, then, are you basing this experience. W2K alone?
(Haven't used XP myself. The cussing from the next cubicle over dissuades me.)
--saint
While I haven't really decided whether or not I personally support LGPL for Wine, I haven't seen the opposing viewpoint posted at all, so I thought I'd just post the link to why GNU backronymed LGPL to "Lesser".
Basically, they argue that releasing code under GPL encourages more free (not as in beer) software development.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I'm not sure they could change the license away from GPL, at least the code they already have written. The old code is GPL and must stay GPL according to the termps of the GPL. And if I remember correctly, any code that uses GPL code must also then be GPL. So that means any future versions of Wine (unless started over from scratch) must continue to be GPL.
I think that's what they mean by "viral licensing."
Beer is going to sponsor GPL.
A spokesperson for Budwieser commented that there would be no way they would sponsor anything other. "LGPL? Let WINE sponsor it, Beer is a manly drink. We won't deal with the (L)ady GNU Public License."
In other news, Alexandre Julliard has stated that they plan to begin advertising WINE during LPGA games.
Yeah I agree, if you're a parasitic leech trying to make money off others freely available work, then the *GPL licenses can be somewhat of a nuisance...
Damn you hippies for not letting me rip you off, damn you all to hell!
Ok. I will allow the SunOS argument--I did say "usually". :) Although, can anyone think of some newer cases where the closed-source version stalled or stopped the open-source version?
I don't think either, since I don't have access to data that would tell me. What good would making a random guess do?
I was just wondering.
Depends on whether you call Mac OS X closed source because of Quartz, or open source because of Darwin.
:)
Sheesh! Didn't you know that everything is black or white here?!? No gray allowed!
Good point.
You spelled Jeremy two different ways in the discussion. Hint: The first one is wrong.
Why should I care? Well, his name is my name too, and I get pretty sick of people misspelling it.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Just one detail: Apache is released under the Apache license, not under the (modified) BSD license. Both are free software licenses, but not the same thing; for example, the modified BSD (not the original one) is compatible with the GPL, while the Apache license is not.
De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
Unless, of course, they tie it in with some patented or otherwise encumbered code that is not legal to duplicate.
Which couldn't be used in the GPL-version anyway. So you still get an extra choice that you would not have had with the GPL-software. Nowhere is anything taken away from the free version by this!
BTW, code can't be patented, only an idea or algorithm. Of course the real answer to the inability to use an trivially simple idea or algorithm in open source (or closed source by another company) is to limit patents.
Human nature is what's wrong. I don't trust my fellow man enough to assume that he will be as forthcoming with his additions to my code as I was with the original code. Therefore, if he wants to have the advantages of my code, he is going to contribute his advantages back to me.
I'm convinced that a very large percentage of (usable) open source code has been written by cooperations or in the boss' time. Sun wrote a lot of code for the Jakarta project. IBM and Lotus wrote a lot of code for the Apache XML Project. A lot of companies contributed to Apache itself. Apple is paying a FreeBSD-developer and makes some nice open source software. The list goes on and on.
Why are you so paranoid when many companies are already proving that they are willing to contribute? Of course this usually requires that they can actually use their own contributions for their uses and a non-copyleft license is thus very important.
I don't care what they use my code for, as long as they give back.
I trust that companies will give code back. It is often in their best interest (as I already pointed out). GPL will just ensure that your code isn't used, and thus you won't get anything back from them.
I guess I'm just pragmatic.
What 'legitimate and important uses' require that you can't give back your source? I can't think of one.
1. I make changes to the software that are specific to my business. It can't be open because that would expose my secrets.
2. I have created my super-duper commercial package and want to link it to an open source web-server. I'm willing to open source every addition to the web-server I make to suit my needs, but the rest of the software is my property.
3. I want to add video codec X, it's not mine. My clients are willing to pay for it though. What's the problem with making a closed version that includes the codec? I'm willing to contribute every change that is 100% mine to give away. A good example of this kind of thing is Darwin, Apple can't give away the driver code for ATI or NVidia cards, so that code is only distributed as binary.
These uses sound perfectly legitimate and important to me. They make or break the ability to provide useful features for clients with open source software. These uses do not take anything away from the original code, not do they cause a company to withhold code that they would otherwise open up. So why are they not allowed under the GPL?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
... I've had Linux crash on me more than XP...
I was under the impression that you were not allowed to link your program to an LGPLed library - you are only allowed to dynamically bind it to it.
I think this is to ensure that the user can still recompile the LGPLed bit for herself if she needs to.
Ironically, think of the BSD licenses as being gift-culture-centric: when the programmer gives away their work, they have no control over how their gift is used.
The GPL licenses are more of an exchange-culture approach: I give you my code in return for you giving me any code you modify or add to it (if you ever redistribute it).
--LP, putting a different twist on ESR's anthropological gift/exchange culture analogies
P.S. To address your question more specifically, the GPL is basically forced sharing. It inhibits leeching a free resource, which may or may not yield more freedom for a creator, contributor or user of the resource, depending on their goals.
The GPL does raise the costs (barriers to entry) of someone using the 'embrace, extend, extinguish' strategy against you based on the software you built (see: BSD TCP/IP stack). Of course, neither approach eliminates it.
Yeah, or you just cp your global wine config to ~/.wine/config & ~/.transgaming/config. - You set up your wine directories/drives in there.
when everything is working perfectly.. BREAK SOMETHING before something else FUCKS up!
If WINE is placed under a restrictive license (and both the GPL and the LGPL are highly restrictive compared to the current licensing), it's time to do what the OpenBSD/OpenSSH crowd did with SSH: Create a truly free version of WINE that isn't covered by a nasty license that's specifically intended to prevent free use of the code. It's a shame to have to do a fork, but it is the only way to keep WINE truly free. I have just downloaded the latest version of the code, just in case Jeremy & Co. attempt to make it unavailable. OpenWINE, anyone?
Which couldn't be used in the GPL-version anyway. So you still get an extra choice that you would not have had with the GPL-software. Nowhere is anything taken away from the free version by this!
*I* don't get any extra choice. Nobody is ever going to use my own code as a starting point to enforce a software patent, possibly against me.
Why are you so paranoid when many companies are already proving that they are willing to contribute? Of course this usually requires that they can actually use their own contributions for their uses and a non-copyleft license is thus very important.
I don't care what any company chooses to do or not to do. If they want to use my code, they *are* going to contribute back - no maybes about it.
I trust that companies will give code back. It is often in their best interest (as I already pointed out). GPL will just ensure that your code isn't used, and thus you won't get anything back from them.
The more pervasive the GPL becomes, the less likely this will be a problem.
1. I make changes to the software that are specific to my business. It can't be open because that would expose my secrets.
You don't have to release the source unless you intend on distributing your program.
2. I have created my super-duper commercial package and want to link it to an open source web-server. I'm willing to open source every addition to the web-server I make to suit my needs, but the rest of the software is my property.
If the web server is LGPL, no problem. If it's GPL, find another web server.
3. I want to add video codec X, it's not mine. My clients are willing to pay for it though. What's the problem with making a closed version that includes the codec?
I think this one depends. IANAL, but I don't think that your licensing a codec and including it in some GPL software for someone would be considered distribution as long as they weren't otherwise distributing it. For instance, if I worked for a company and we had standardized on some GPL video editing software, what would be the problem with my doing anything I wanted with that software as long as it didn't leave the company?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Time for some more of that Conspiracy Theory stuff:
The recent rumours that AOL was looking to buy redhat... There is usually something behind the smoke...
What if AOL was looking for a distro to use for their settop boxes (or easily installed on a standard PC). A disto that can have Wine installed on it.
A distro that AOL can use with wine, and minimal changes to their AOL client would allow them a VERY quick deployment of a Linux based installation of an AOL client.
A distro that can be bundled with Wine+the client in a single install.
Or... A client+wine package that can be installed on any distro that the standard users would be familiar with.....
--
You may be paranoid, but that does not mean that they are not after you.... --Someone on IRC somwhere..
--
Time is on my side
Here's why. As most people already know, the GPL and LGPL require developers who create "derivative works" to give their work away for free. But what most people do not understand is that if a programmer so much as looks at GPLed or LGPLed code, and later writes some code that performs the same function, he or she is open to accusations that the code produced later is a derivative work. (The late ex-Beatle George Harrison fell into a similar trap when he heard a song and, years later, wrote one with a similar melody. A court convicted him of "unconscious" copyright infringement because he'd heard the original song.)
For this reason, commercial programmers simply cannot look at source code that's published under one of the FSF's licenses without taking a tremendous risk which could destroy their careers as programmers. This may be fine with Richard Stallman -- who in the GNU Manifesto stated that programmers should code for love rather than money and that good salaries for programmers should be "banned" -- but for those of us who need to put food on the table it is simply a risk we cannot take.
Thus, if WINE is GPLed, I can no longer look at the code, fix bugs when something breaks, or contribute to the project. Nor can I peruse the code in order to learn from it. It will, effectively, be as closed as a closed source product to me and to any other commercial programmer. WINE will be un-free, and only a truly free fork (which I sincerely hope will occur if CodeWeavers attempts to change the license) will be accessible to those who want to code for a living.
I don't like this, it is another license, and as far as I can tell the vast majority of people writing LGPL would be happy with this modification. I wish there was an official modification of LGPL to say this.
Ouch, my head hurts after trying to read that thing.
Something is wrong with the world when computing is more about legal document than writing code and fiddling with electronic gadgets.
Sometimes I think that GNU just makes matters worse by adding another layer of complexity.
You're right. One of the fundamental freedoms that users of open source should possess is "freedom from FUD." They should have confidence that they are able to use code in the way that they expect, and that they understand all of the terms and implications of the license.
Neither the GPL nor the LGPL provides this. Each begins with a political manifesto, then moves on to a license, rife with legalese, that the FSF itself admits has never been fully interpreted by a court. Even within the FSF's own ranks there are disagreements as to what the language means.
The BSD License is short, clear, and unambiguous. There's no FUD -- no question about what it means. And it has been tested and ruled to be valid in a court of law.
Licensing WINE under the (L)GPL would do more than infect it with an intentionally malicious, viral license.
It would infect it with FUD.
"A distro that AOL can use with wine, and minimal changes to their AOL client would allow them a VERY quick deployment of a Linux based installation of an AOL client. "
If they ever decide to use thier own browser [Netscape/Mozilla] that would allow a very quick deployment on just about any OS. The only thing they would need Wine for is proprietary plug-ins [ala Codeweavers], so your argument does have merit.
They're locked into Windows by their own decision (they're no longer legally bound by contract) to continue to buy IE even though they make thier own browser. It absolutely boggles me.
It's like if Chrysler decided to use all GM 4-cylinder engines in thier cars while they continue to manufacture their own engines and sell them to Mitsubishi (as they do) all the while complaining about GM's 'monopoly' and how they are 'being forced out of the market, per say.
This rant is running off-topic, but it completely blows my mind how AOL could complain about MS monopoly while at the same time contributing to it by using IE all the while they have their own browser which they don't use, have never used, nor have any intention to ever use (no AOL person has ever made any public statment that they ever intend not to use IE in thier PC AOL client -- they 'hinted' at perhaps using Gecko in their mythical 'web applicance', which I don't see happening any time soon.)
Can anyone shed any light on WTF AOL is thinking and [back on-topic] how this could relate to wine?
Which is better depends on what you think is important. But the belief that the BSD license is "more free", as espoused by some here, is not a universal notion.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
While I sort of prefer the straightforwardness and the simplicity of the BSD license, I have to give credit to the GPL on at least one important, perhaps supreme, area: it seems to give better results.
Now really there is more correlation than causation involved here, but Linux is GPL'ed and BSD is, well, BSD'ed, and Linux seems to be winning the race at this point.
Now, there are other factors involoved, other than the way these unices are licensed, but couldn't this be a very important factor?
Again, the BSD license has always been more appealing to me, but GPL'ed
software seems to get better proliferation.
I'd love to hear some other thoughts or examples along these lines.
evanchik.net
I'd love to hear some other thoughts or examples along these lines.
Neither XFree86 nor Apache are GPLed, and they are considered to be jewels in the opensource crown by many.
--saint
Now really there is more correlation than causation involved here, but Linux is GPL'ed and BSD is, well, BSD'ed, and Linux seems to be winning the race at this point.
Actually, Linux incorporates large amounts of code from BSD. (For example, take a look at Linux's syslogd. You'll see that it's the BSD syslogd, written by Eric Allman, who also wrote Sendmail.) So, BSD code is on every machine that runs Linux. It's also on every machine that runs FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, of course -- and every commercial version of UNIX. Windows (all versions with networking), OS/2, and BeOS also use BSD code -- particularly in the network stacks and utilities. MacOS X is based on FreeBSD Version 3.4. It may well be that there is no computer running any modern operating system that does not have BSD code on it. BSD wins by a landslide.
What's more, Apache -- which is licensed under a license that is essentially the BSD license -- has far higher market share than Linux has, or is likely to have.
I'd say that's a pretty good argument for the efficacy of the BSD License. It has done more good for computer users and programmers than any other software license. Were the Berkeley TCP/IP stack not released under the BSD License, we would not have an Internet today.
The BSD License was ruled to be valid -- and enforced! -- during the lawsuit between AT&T's (later Novell's) Unix System Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley over the distribution of BSD. The University successfully claimed that AT&T had violated the BSD License by failing to credit the contributors to the BSD code . The claim carried such weight that it forced a court-approved settlement in which USL capitulated.
In the story, a bird lays an egg and then convinces a kindly elephant named Horton to sit on it. Horton braves all manner of hardships -- heat, hold, even the indignity of being captured and displayed as a freak in a circus -- to remain with his charge until it hatches.
Whereupon, the bird immediately demands that Horton return the fruits of his labor to her.
Were she a modern Richard Stallman, she might have declared that it was a GPLed egg.
Writing a program -- like laying an egg -- isn't necessarily an easy task. However, bringing it to the marketplace and successfully selling it as a product -- especially in the presence of a free alternative -- is a much more difficult and dangerous one. The company that hopes to sell a product that's an improved derivative of one that's available for free is taking a big risk and must make a truly Hortonian (if I may coin the phrase) effort to be successful.
What Mr. Stallman and the GPL would ask is that the person who manages to do this -- against all odds -- get nothing.
CodeWeavers appears to believe that the emergence of products such as Lindows is a threat to it and/or to WINE. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the creators of such projects act in their own best interests, they will return all but the most strategically important code from their implementations to the WINE project, reserving for themselves only what is necessary to differentiate their product from what another vendor (e.g. Red Hat) might produce. This minimizes their maintenance costs, and may -- there's no sure thing here -- provide them with sufficient value added to survive in the presence of a free alternative.
To (L)GPL WINE, on the other hand, prevents such worthy products from ever seeing the light of day. It is, in essence, snatching back the egg from poor Horton after all of his hard work. And it won't benefit WINE or CodeWeavers. The companies' potential contributions will be lost, and CodeWeavers and WINE will gain them a reputation for being hostile to business. This will cause the consulting business from which CodeWeavers hopes to make money to dry up.
In short, the move is shortsighted and bad for all concerned.
CodeWeavers should look instead to the model of Wasabi Systems (http://www.wasabisystems.com/), which just received a round of venture capital funding worth more than $1M to port, publish, promote, and consult on NetBSD. NetBSD is truly free; it's published not under the restrictive GPL or LGPL but under the BSD License. And Wasabi is going strong; they just published a desktop package (consisting of NetBSD plus GUIs and applications) that is competitive with the best of the Linux distributions.
Yeah, as was mentioned, Apache isn't under BSD licenses.
Also, if you are the copyright holder you can do whatever you want to. IBM could give code to a GPL project and still maintain a proprietary version. Think TrollTech, Mozilla, theKompany, StarOffice, etc.
Right now Wine is kind of getting screwed by Lindows. Lindows is doing a lot of work (i.e. money) from standing on the shoulders of the Wine developers and not giving it back to the community. That sucks for everyone--except those that want to sell Lindows.
As long as I can run certain Windows apps (like some multimedia demos) in wine, and can have wine-based things like kylix.
I believe porting delphi to linux/wine is mostly a lot of tweaking and fixing the rough edges in both delphi and wine (plus writing linux-specific things like CLX). If a lot of code need to be written for wine, this won't be economically feasible for borland. Therefore, I don't think borland would care too much about whether or not open-source the small amount of changes in wine, compared to the tons of code in delphi/kylix. They just want to get kylix running and sold.
Quite a few other wine-based commercial apps are in the similar situation.
As for wine as a standalone application, LGPL might be better. How much of wine is currently commercially contributed? Not much, IMHO. Changing to LGPL might not do much benefit, but it surely will not do much harm here.
...any more than Linux is being "jacked" by Red Hat. Both are trying to add value -- something which they must do in order to sell product, because the code is available at no cost.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ve have vays of making you submit patches!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
No but you can turn openbsd.org into suckers. That what happens when someone steals your code and makes cash on it.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Don't like it then FIND ANOTHER WELL.
One of the purposes of the GPL is to poison the well, driving out all other software so that there is no alternative. A good example of a GPLed program that is well on the way to accomplishing this is GCC. It's inferior to commercial alternatives, but (as Microsoft demonstrated with Netscape) even a superior product can't compete when another in the same category is being given away for free as part of a predatory strategy.
So why do people still choose the GPL over BSD license?
evanchik.net
I thought their open debate was interesting enough that I submitted it here on Slashdot. However, the issue is now dead. They are NOT changing to the LGPL. Please leave the WINE coders alone and let them write code. They deserve credit for having a very civil and constructive debate about licensing issues, in a climate where flamewars are the rule when the issue gets brought up. WINE coders are not only excellent programmers, but they are also wise for having settled the issue. This "Jeremy" may be a smart guy, but his position lost out. Him trying to stoke up the issue and cause dissention in the improbably civil WINE community does not seem very smart to me. Last year was the time to discuss this. Now is the time to shut up and code.
This is blatently false. In much the same way you can write a paper with a GPL'd word processor, you can use water from the well without restriction. The GPL only kicks in when you A) modify the well, and B) distribute your modifications.
Furthermore, the well analogy doesn't even work. The well is physical property. The GPL applies to intellectual property. But I will humor the analogy. If someone were to hook a pump up to the well, and sell the water, the GPL still wouldn't apply. The GPL would only apply if the pump owner distributed the pump. This is a recognized limitation of the GPL.
If someone modifies a GPL'd web server, they may serve all the pages they want without releasing their changes. They only have to release changes if they distribute the server. Even then, they only have to release changes to the people that they distribute the server to. I believe there are plans to address this issue in the next version of the GPL.
Back to the well analogy, let's consider a situation where the GPL would kick in. Suppose you discover several places where the well is actually a spring. You decide you would like to make money selling aquaducts and maps to the springs. The GPL simply states that anyone who buys your aquaduct and map, may copy the map and sell their own aquaducts (and you have to tell them how you did it). The LGPL says, the people who buy your aquaducts and maps may copy the maps (and you have to tell them how you derived the maps), but you can still prohibit them from selling aquaducts. Furthermore, if you built the aquaduct for on a different well, the GPL won't even apply to your aquaduct.
Finally, if you don't like the terms of the GPL'd or LGPL'd well, you are free to find your own aquafer and start a new well under any terms you choose.
*I* don't get any extra choice. Nobody is ever going to use my own code as a starting point to enforce a software patent, possibly against me.
You do get an extra choice, even if you aren't willing to consider it. Others may. I don't have a problem with sufficiently advanced patents. They do have their place (but should be strictly limited).
But your crusade against patents should not be fought over open source code. Patent issues are not specific to open source, they can/do harm commercial software just as much. The proper way to fight them is through politics (write your congressman) or through law (donate to the EFF).
I don't care what any company chooses to do or not to do. If they want to use my code, they *are* going to contribute back - no maybes about it.
Then you shouldn't use the GPL but a more restrictive license ("If you use this software, all your base belong to us"). GPL'ed code can be used without giving back as well (by not distributing the code). Companies are not forced to make changes and thus may leech. And I wonder why you don't mind when good code isn't used because the license doesn't allow perfectly valid uses. This a big shame. If more companies will use open source they will lower their costs, thus learn about the advantages of sharing their IP and start contributing.
Your simple-minded argument doesn't hold up very well. If you do have to depend on companies' goodwill and commitment for them to contribute to open source, why not go the whole way and actually threat them like adults. Give them freedom to make their own decisions. If you truly believe in the merits of open source, you must believe that it will be beneficial to companies and they will thus support it.
I trust that companies will give code back. It is often in their best interest (as I already pointed out). GPL will just ensure that your code isn't used, and thus you won't get anything back from them.
The more pervasive the GPL becomes, the less likely this will be a problem.
I believe that GPL will (hopefully and probably) not become that pervasive among companies (except for Linux). Instead it may give open source a bad name when companies get bitten by the GPL license. Is it not better to let money do the talking, instead of lawyers?
1. I make changes to the software that are specific to my business. It can't be open because that would expose my secrets.
You don't have to release the source unless you intend on distributing your program.
Suppose that Shell wants to distribute software to gas stations that link into it's own systems for greater efficiency (with JNI for instance). This specific code may not be open sourced because provisions for future products are put into the code before they are available. Those gas stations are independent and the software is thus 'distributed'.
2. I have created my super-duper commercial package and want to link it to an open source web-server. I'm willing to open source every addition to the web-server I make to suit my needs, but the rest of the software is my property.
If the web server is LGPL, no problem. If it's GPL, find another web server.
This is not a denial of my point. Argueing that GPL software cannot be used when I claim that some legitimate and important uses are not possible with GPL merely proves my point. The LGPL is far different from the GPL of course, let's keep focus.
3. I want to add video codec X, it's not mine. My clients are willing to pay for it though. What's the problem with making a closed version that includes the codec?
I think this one depends. IANAL, but I don't think that your licensing a codec and including it in some GPL software for someone would be considered distribution as long as they weren't otherwise distributing it. For instance, if I worked for a company and we had standardized on some GPL video editing software, what would be the problem with my doing anything I wanted with that software as long as it didn't leave the company?
Every company would have to license the codec and integrate it seperately??? Suppose we are talking about 20 codecs by 20 different companies, many of which need to be adapted to work with the software. A central entity can make this happen and ask a fee for their hard work (and to cover the license costs). Single companies may not have the resources to expend this much for just themselves and they may not have the clout to get the codec-providers to adapt their software (small companies are especially hurt by this, making it harder for them to compete with large corporations). So either this will be impossible or it will cost far more to accomplice (a bulk license for the codecs will usually be cheaper).
This points out a big problem with the GPL, BTW. It discriminates against a network of small companies in favor of large corporations. The latter can share an altered GPL-program without opening the code (for which there may be good reasons), while the network cannot. They are at a disadvantage. So choosing the GPL unwillingly promotes mega-corporations.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Your simple-minded argument doesn't hold up very well. If you do have to depend on companies' goodwill and commitment for them to contribute to open source, why not go the whole way and actually threat them like adults.
Umm, I don't have to depend on a company's goodwill - I use the GPL. With the BSD license, you are forced to depend on just that, and I'd rather not.
Give them freedom to make their own decisions.
They have the freedom to choose to incorporate my code or not to, just as I have the freedom to require that any changes they want to distribute are given back to the community.
If you truly believe in the merits of open source, you must believe that it will be beneficial to companies and they will thus support it.
Companies exist to make money, not to be altruistic. If they that think they can get away with something, they generally will. I have no qualms with taking the decision to use my code in a way I don't like out of their hands.
I believe that GPL will (hopefully and probably) not become that pervasive among companies (except for Linux). Instead it may give open source a bad name when companies get bitten by the GPL license. Is it not better to let money do the talking, instead of lawyers?
With both IBM and SUN recently getting behind linux in a big way, it looks lik the GPL is, in fact, becoming more pervasive. These are not small time players - they know what they are getting into.
Argueing that GPL software cannot be used when I claim that some legitimate and important uses are not possible with GPL merely proves my point.
What you are claiming as a legitimate use, I see as an abuse. You know the rules when you decide to build on a piece of GPL software. If you agree with them, you will abide by the required terms. If not, you are free to use something else. So, just like everything else in life, it comes down to a choice - "do I need the benefits of a piece of code enough to agree to the price?"
Personally, I will continue to release every piece of code I write under the GPL.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
So why do people still choose the GPL over BSD license?
Most don't choose; the project chooses the license for them.
Others do not know that there's more than one license for open source.
Still others are deceived by the propaganda that accompanies the GPL. They see the claim that the GPL makes software "free" at the top (even though it is a bald-faced lie) and never read the pages of legalese that follow.
Still others believe that by embracing the GPL they are attacking large corporations such as Microsoft. In fact, those corporations have the ability to hire programmers to implement equivalents of anything they choose. It's small companies that want to compete with big guys like Microsoft that are most badly hurt by the GPL, because the GPL denies them access to code and they're forced to reimplement. (It's ironic that the GPL is so beneficial to Microsoft, but it is. It kills Microsoft's potential competition in the cradle.)
In NO case is the GPL actually a good choice. It is an onerous and unconscionable license that will hopefully be ruled illegal sometime in the near future.
AOL is supposedly making a AOL/Tivo thing that will allow web browsing, email, and instant messaging. All running on Linux.
Umm, I don't have to depend on a company's goodwill
You do if you want them to contribute to open source. You start out at the proposition that people use your open source product, I take the whole picture into account:
total contribution by companies = use of open source*contribution per project
BSD maximizes the first, which will probably maximize the total figure (as I have pointed out that it has great advantages to contribute). You just focus on the second figure, but 0.0001*50 is still not very much.
Companies exist to make money, not to be altruistic. If they that think they can get away with something, they generally will. I have no qualms with taking the decision to use my code in a way I don't like out of their hands.
That's a very cynical view. Most companies do actually worry about more than pure profits. Did you check out the list of companies that double their employees donations for the EFF? It's long and heartwarming, snif.
I really don't see that many 'abuses' of BSD. Most companies who use BSD (or similarly) licensed products do contribute (or have even created the product in the first place), so why would you need to force them?
With both IBM and SUN recently getting behind linux in a big way, it looks lik the GPL is, in fact, becoming more pervasive. These are not small time players - they know what they are getting into.
They like it as a server-OS and certainly did not pick it because of the GPL, just about all the other products they support or open sourced themselves are non-copyleft.
What you are claiming as a legitimate use, I see as an abuse.
Sure, the examples I gave would truly have hurt the community (not). But of course, usage of IP is an abuse if it doesn't follow your rules. That's the same logic in EULA's, DVD regions and copy-protection, protected CD's, protected ebooks, the DMCA, etc. It's the thinking (and laws that support it) that I want to abolish, the abuse of power because you can create/control and others cannot. You focus so heavily on enforcing your rules, why are you unwilling to discuss the validity of the rules themselves?
It seems to me that you know you have lost this discussion and are trying to weazel out of the question at hand: Is copyleft truly necessary to force companies to contribute? I claim this is not so and thus it is best to try and pick a license that maximizes use and reduces adversity and legal issues. The BSD-license seems to do this well.
Of course, GPL has it's place for certain uses, but BSD is my first choice. Why? Because I want open source to achieve it's true potential, a strong force that goes hand in hand with commercial software. Open source will be able to supply some of the software we need, while commercial software will fill the niches that cannot be filled by open source.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
You do if you want them to contribute to open source.
No, I don't. I know that they cannot legally distribute anything build upon my source without contributing themselves. Straightforward. No doubts about it. The worst thing that can happen is that some freeloading company doesn't use my code. Big deal. I'd rather have one person who is actually committed to writing good code than a whole company full of people who got their CIS degree for Big Buck$
total contribution by companies = use of open source*contribution per project.
BSD maximizes the first, which will probably maximize the total figure
Hardly. You can imagine that companies prefer the BSD license all you like, it doesn't affect the fact that most of the worthwhile software is currently being developed under the GPL. What companies do or don't do really doesn't matter at this point.
That's a very cynical view.
It's also realistic. Had a look at the headlines lately? *cough* Enron *cough*
Most companies do actually worry about more than pure profits. Did you check out the list of companies that double their employees donations for the EFF? It's long and heartwarming, snif.
Yeah, yeah. My company matches 10%, but it's all just advertising to them.
I really don't see that many 'abuses' of BSD. Most companies who use BSD (or similarly) licensed products do contribute (or have even created the product in the first place), so why would you need to force them?
Because I don't want to see any, and if I do, I want the option of being able to do something about it.
They like it as a server-OS and certainly did not pick it because of the GPL, just about all the other products they support or open sourced themselves are non-copyleft.
Hmm. Ever wonder why they didn't choose to get behind BSD? Maybe because they don't want their hard work going to finance Microsoft any more than I do. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe its just because linux is a better system.
But of course, usage of IP is an abuse if it doesn't follow your rules. That's the same logic in EULA's, DVD regions and copy-protection, protected CD's, protected ebooks, the DMCA, etc.It's the thinking (and laws that support it) that I want to abolish, the abuse of power because you can create/control and others cannot. You focus so heavily on enforcing your rules, why are you unwilling to discuss the validity of the rules themselves?
As long as our copyright laws are in place, I will use them to make sure that my code remains open. I see no reason not to use the same tools that are used against me. If they were to go away tomorrow, the world would certainly be a better place. I don't see that happening though, so I will guarantee that at least my contribution will always lead to more openness.
Is copyleft truly necessary to force companies to contribute?
It doesn't matter to me whether it is 'truly necessary' or not. I ask only that the same thing that I have given is given in return. If that's too much, then too bad.
Open source will be able to supply some of the software we need, while commercial software will fill the niches that cannot be filled by open source.
My crystal ball tells me that eventually, the only role for commercial software will be specialized applications. Everything else will be open source.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The worst thing that can happen is that some freeloading company doesn't use my code.
/. was a fishing simulator.
No, the worst thing that can happen is that companies do not choose to use and enchance your product, because of which it doesn't gain momentum and fades away. This means that your work is wasted.
The best thing that can happen with BSD-licensed software is that everyone gives up their own commercial products and decides to built upon the open source code. A good example is Apache, companies have made great contributions to it (I think that most programmers who work on it are paid by corporations) and most competitors have given up. This is extremely unlikely with GPL'ed software.
You can imagine that companies prefer the BSD license all you like, it doesn't affect the fact that most of the worthwhile software is currently being developed under the GPL.
Apache, XFree, Xerces, Xalan, Tomcat, Python, PHP and Perl are all licensed under a non-copyleft license.
But I guess that this software isn't worthwhile.
It's also realistic. Had a look at the headlines lately? *cough* Enron *cough*
One example of a company that went crazy and got punished for it (the story could turn into a Disney movie, except for the fact that the employees got punished and those responsible got a lot of money). I counter your one example and up you one with Apple and Sun, who both put a great deal of effort into open source.
But it there a point to this? We could talk all day about the morality of corporations. In the end what counts is whether GPL is necessary to protect software and/or to get enough contributions. I can give many examples of BSD-like licensed software that get great support by companies and have never been abused. I'm quite sure that you'll only be able to find a few examples where the open version floundered, while a hijacked closed version flourished or examples of abuse.
Why do you get so hung up on the few bad examples? Suppose that Newton would have kept his discoveries secret because his calculations might be used for evil (like aiming cannons) or that the automobile would not have been produced out of fear that it would hurt people or flying would have been banned because planes might be used for fighting. We would have still been in the middle ages if everyone thought like you.
Engineers and scientists are and should not feel responsible for all the uses of their inventions. They should try to do good and focus on promoting and working on the uses that benefit mankind. But IMO they are not responsible for building systems that never can be used for evil, for that automatically means that many good uses become impossible.
Hmm. Ever wonder why they didn't choose to get behind BSD? Maybe because they don't want their hard work going to finance Microsoft any more than I do. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe its just because linux is a better system.
Do you mean the BSD-license or *BSD (the OS's)? I'll assume the latter.
Linux has become a hype and has gained some serious momentum, these companies want to profit from that. Other companies (Yahoo, Apple, many ISP's) have chosen *BSD because it suits them better and they don't have to sell it or it is a minor feature of their system (in marketing that is).
Maybe because they don't want their hard work going to finance Microsoft any more than I do.
AFAIK just about the only BSD-software that went into Windows is an early TCP/IP-stack (now fully replaced) and some related utilities (ftp.exe, etc). Without it, the Internet may not have grown that fast and Windows-users may have been shut out for a while. So I don't see anything wrong with it.
But of course, I don't see anything wrong with commercial companies using freely available code as long as they behave morally and lawfully. We should encourage the use of standard, well-written software, just like we should encourage open standards like DDR DRAM. This will benefit the entire market, small and large companies alike (both small and large companies are making money of Apache for instance, it creates an open playing field). If companies do not behave, they should be punished by law or by the power of money, we should not buy their products.
MS is an example of the failure of American law in allowing a monopoly to abuse it's powers, not the failure of open source under a non-copyleft license.
I don't see that happening though, so I will guarantee that at least my contribution will always lead to more openness.
GPL cannot guarantee it, your code can still fade away. A strong, supported BSD-product will also lead to more and more openness as no-one will have the ability to force it into closedness (and thus taking away many advantages). An example is Apache, do you believe it will be closed up again ever?
My crystal ball tells me that eventually, the only role for commercial software will be specialized applications. Everything else will be open source.
Your crystal ball seems to be manipulated by Sauron. Tell me how open source can ever prevail for games that have a 1-year life-span and must be created in a short period by a full-time team as not to fall behind in graphics?
The open source community already has a hard time creating a decent browser and word processor, software that interests millions. How will open source ever be able to cater to fairly small, non-programmer communities? An example that was given by somebody else on
BTW, I assume that specialized apps mean applications adapted or designed for one entity (aka custom-made products). You might also define it as everything outside the OS, so it's a bit unclear what you really mean.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
??Huh?? What the hell are "my kind"... are you referring to people who choose to license their code under the GPL?
I don't think I've ever asked anyone to use my code. Ever. If you take it and refuse to honor my terms you are a thief. Regardless of what rationalizations you create.
Get a grip, man. If your tiny venomous mind could comprehend what I wrote, you'd notice I don't particularly care how Stallman, Raymond, and deRaadt define freedom.
--Charlie
OK, you're deranged, but that was actually pretty funny.
Wouldn't bite if this troll hadn't a score of four, but...
... then why on earth is it that Microsoft uses a lot of their resources for lobbying against GPL while touting that there are freer, less "unamerican" open source licenses (like BSD)?
I beg to differ! I think it's a wonderfully constructed bit of legalese that furthers its goals precisely.
that will hopefully be ruled illegal sometime in the near future.
I totally agree with this point!
If the ideals of the GPL were enacted, or even something close that allows copyright, but not the license cartels we seem to have today, the GPL wouldn't be legally enforceable. And it shouldn't be!! Just like Microsoft's latest version of no-compete/no-reverse engineering cruft shouldn't hold any water. Why should I sign more rights away by installing software than I do by signing a mortgage?
Like most of today's problems, the answer isn't more "rights". For copyright infringement the answer is policing. Just like jaywalking: If you don't punish offenders, no one will obey the law.