Slashdot Mirror
Sun's COO Distorts Free In Free Software
sebFlyte writes "Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's COO and president, said at JavaOne that 'the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free". As you can imagine, this interpretation of 'free' in terms of software has angered a few people somewhat, including Richard Stallman..." From the article: "The free software movement stands for 'free' as in freedom. The open source campaign doesn't present freedom as an ethical issue, but it still formulates its criteria in terms of what users are permitted to do,"
I thought the most important definition of free was free as in beer.
Now it's 'free as in free iPod' or 'free as in Buy Four Get One Free'.
Where were you when the voynix came?
It cannot be!
I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Free is good."
Popular free software programs include AOL Instant Messenger, Opera, and Microsoft Office*.
* Dude, I'll totally hook you up with a copy.
Lets end all these issues by calling OUR definition of free by a different word. Take their power away.
Suggestions?
this interpretation of 'free' in terms of software has angered a few people somewhat, including Richard Stallman
bah, this is STALLMANS interpretation of free, the word 'free' was used in price way before it was used as in 'freedom'
i HATE people that say otherwise.
look, if you want to use 'free' to mean 'freedom', that's fine by me, but if you try and correct me when i use it as in 'no price', then you need to get a life.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Look, you can't just go out and define a word to mean whatever you want. Free means freedom and costless depending on the context, wether you're talking about software not. Getting upset that someone used the word 'free' to mean 'no cost' while talking about software is simply idiotic. Its one thing to educate people, but its an entirely diffrent thing to try to own a word, especialy one thats been around for centuries. Words can have more then one meaning.
Idiots like ESR tried to do this with "hacker", to mean only what they wanted it to mean so that they could call themselves "hackers".
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Wookey, a Debian developer, shared Stallman's view and accused Schwartz of deliberately twisting the definition to justify not releasing Java as open source.
If anything, he probably did it because a large percetange of the population (and especially the business world) don't care to understand "free" in any terms other than money.
Free Software (as RMS believes) is something that is way too radical for most businessmen. I'm sure that Schwartz was just trying to interact with his audience on their level.
Yes, it's wrong and yes it negates all the crazy stuff RMS has talked about over the years but I really don't think it was meant to hide or purposefully deceive anyone. Then again, RMS wouldn't have anything to get his name in the news about then, would he?
How much more did that $2billion buy.
quote from article "and so the free part is what we've been focused on"
Maybe that is why the SUN is setting and RHAT is on the acendancy - all a matter of outlook and definition. Just how much are these guys getting paid to know what is going on.
Richard Stallman nominates GNU/Free.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
In soviet russia...the commercial software distorts the commercial software!
(Thanks to dictionary.com)
free
adj. freer, freest
1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.
1. Having political independence: "America... is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world" (Rudolph W. Giuliani).
2. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
3. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
4.
1. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; free from need.
2. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
5. Not subject to external restraint: "Comment is free but facts are sacred" (Charles Prestwich Scott).
6. Not literal or exact: a free translation.
7.
1. Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.
2. Publicly supported: free education.
8.
1. Not occupied or used: a free locker.
2. Not taken up by scheduled activities: free time between classes.
9. Unobstructed; clear: a free lane.
10. Unguarded in expression or manner; open; frank.
11. Taking undue liberties; forward or overfamiliar.
12. Liberal or lavish: tourists who are free with their money.
13. Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: a free act of the will; free choices.
14. Chemistry & Physics.
1. Unconstrained; unconfined: free expansion.
2. Not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion: a free electron.
3. Not chemically bound in a molecule: free oxygen.
4. Involving no collisions or interactions: a free path.
5. Empty: a free space.
6. Unoccupied: a free energy level.
15. Nautical. Favorable: a free wind.
16. Not bound, fastened, or attached: the free end of a chain.
17. Linguistics.
1. Being a form, especially a morpheme, that can stand as an independent word, such as boat or bring.
2. Being a vowel in an open syllable, as the o in go.
adv.
1. In a free manner; without restraint.
2. Without charge.
John, I'm Only Dancing!
Many open source projects are mimics of commercially available software. They were adopted because they were free for the most part - not because the source code was available. Very few people and companies customize the software or utilize the source code in any way.
Let's call it "libre."
No, wait. That makes us sound pedantic, petty, and grouchy enough that we need to start co-opting other languages' words to set ourselves apart from the crowd.
"Libre" it is.
For more information, click here.
Couldn't we moderate Jonathan Schwartz as a troll?
Now, seriously, the guy must do whatever doesn't break the law to increse Sun's shareholder value. What would you expect, ethical behaviour? Free as in speech is dangerous for Sun - their edge in hardware is eroding fast and he can do nothing about it. He can reduce the erosion in software by creating confusion.
It's not surprising.
Not at all.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
free-as-in-freedom software so that it generates
less confusion. Here are a couple of suggestions:
Id hazard a guess that for 99% of the people who take advantage of the 'free software' movement do so precisely because its zero purchase cost, not because it gives them freedom of code. Seriously, how many people using apache do so because of the open codebase as opposed to the fact that they got an enterprise level web server for zero cost? MySQL? Perl? Linux? How many people that you recommend a GPLed application to dabble with the code? How many would have paid for that software instead of using something else?
Somehow, I'm thinking Stallman has just found something new to be furious about...! Ingrid, better check your email!
By the way, did the article leave out thefirst name of "Wookey, a Debian developer", did I somehow miss it or is that ZD's idea of a source?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Now normally, I'd agree whole-heartedly with your disgust re: their pedantry. However, I must admit, in the context of the keynote speech, Schwartzman actually went out of his way to say the acronym, "FOSS", meaning "Free and Open Source Software". If you tried to correct me on the street when I said "free", and meant free as in beer, then yes, I'd immediately stop talking to you. In this case though, the Free and Open Source Software community defined their unorganized collective by coining that phrase/name, and Schwartzman went out of his way to explicitly call the movement by said name, so in this case only, I think I actually do agree with his nonsensical rambling.
--- What
Dear Slashdot Editors,
Can you ease up on the Sun bashing articles, at least for a few weeks? It's already clear to your readers you have some kind of special hate for Sun. No need to keep beating a dead horse.Thank you,
A Slashdot Reader
But where is
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I suggest we use "gay". Here's a good slogan:
"SOFTWARE FREEDOM IS GAY!"
That way, the gay software movement can encourage people to make their software gay, too. When people ask you what you do, you can say "I'm a gay software developer".
Come on, it would be funny. Let's start a petition.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
He didn't distort the definition. He just stated what he admitted was his own opinion on what the most important part of free software is.
From TFA:
Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free...
In spanish there are different words for free.
Libre = free as in Freedom
Gratis = free as in beer
This might play havoc with acronyms though, Goodbuy FSF, Hello LSF.
Somehow I just don't care.
Sun may be shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to join the FOSS movement. Simply offering software for free is obviously not good enough; they need to make it totally accessible for it to meet its potential.
But this doesn't matter, really. If Sun decides that they're going to keep their toys to theirselves, the FOSS community will come up with something to rival it. It happened with lots of other programs, and now we have OpenOffice, Linux, MonoDevelop, Audacity, PDFCreator, GiMP, Blender, Firefox, 7-Zip, and more. It can happen with Java, too.
Regardless of the fact that the new alternatives would no doubt mimic Java, the fact that their source would be universally available would give them an edge over the original.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
free (adj.)
O.E. freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage," also "noble, joyful," from P.Gmc. *frijaz (cf. M.H.G. vri, Ger. frei, Du. vrij, Goth. freis "free"), from PIE *prijos "dear, beloved" (cf. Skt. priyah "own, dear, beloved," priyate "loves;" O.C.S. prijati "to help," prijatelji "friend;" Welsh rhydd "free"). The adv. is from O.E. freon, freogan "to free, love." The primary sense seems to have been "beloved, friend, to love;" which in some languages (notably Gmc. and Celtic) developed also a sense of "free," perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves, cf. L. liberi, meaning both "free" and "children"). Cf. Goth. frijon "to love;" O.E. freod "affection, friendship," friga "love," friðu "peace;" O.N. friðr, Ger. Friede "peace;" O.E. freo "wife;" O.N. Frigg "wife of Odin," lit. "beloved" or "loving;" M.L.G. vrien "to take to wife, Du. vrijen, Ger. freien "to woo." Sense of "given without cost" is 1585, from notion of "free of cost." Of nations, "not subject to foreign rule or to despotism," it is recorded from 1375. Freedman "manumitted slave" first recorded 1601. Colloquial freeloader first recorded 1930s; free fall is from 1919, originally of parachutists; free-hand is from 1862; free-thinker is from 1692. Freebie dates back to 1942 as freeby, perhaps as early as 1900. Free-for-all "mass brawl" (in which anyone may participate) first recorded 1881. Freebase (n. and v.) in ref. to cocaine first recorded 1980.
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
How about Freedom...already a clearly understood term and Freedom Software is only three letters longer that Free Software. Or produce a derivative term:
Freeware is already taken and focuses on cost...so maybe Freedomware...or Marxware, Commuware/Commiware, Leftware, Liberalware or Ant-capitalismware...
OR WE COULD STOP BEING DUMB AND TRYING TO OWN THE MEANING OF WORDS!!!!
He's GNU/Angry!
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
You could just call it "freed software". Then you're definitely using the transitive verb instead of the adjective.
If Stallman and his ilk had had the simple foresight to refer to it as the "software freedom movement" or some such instead of the "free software movement," then it would've been a lot easier to promote the F/OSS agenda. There are plenty of ways to express the concept of freedom in software without confusion. You'd think Stallman would've seen this.
Frenchware?
a definition of "free" has ben forked... good.
this is a small step for man and a huge step for OSS
When I think of Freedom in the aspect of software I don't think of GPL software first to which I am sure this is all directed. What I think of as true freedom is BSD.
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
i dont know Richard Stallman, im sure he is a nice guy but he does not speak on behalf of me about the "free" software i choose to distribute
and iam sure he does not speak for people in the other 191 countries on this earth
Americans wonder why there is so much anti-americanism in the world when they self appoint themselves as representatives of the rest-of-the-world and proceede to dictate what other people in other nations can or cannot do
free software is a global thing
so fuck him, he and his cronies dont speak for me and dont speak for "free software" in general
perhaps he should concentrate on what they are doing, not me
One man's distortion is another man's monopolization of a term
is another man's marketing opportunity
is another man's opinion.
--
is another way to say 'YAWN'
I do believe that Sun will eventually yield to the pressure and make Java open source. Resistance is futile, really. IBM wants it to be open source. There's the HarmonyProject. Microsoft has .NET, a Java clone which will not be open source any sooner. There's mounting competition from open source platforms, such a Ruby. We just need to be patient.
XML UI Browser/Platform
I was lucky enough to go to JavaOne, and was sitting in the room as he said this, and it indeed annoyed me.
Politics aside, Richard Stallman makes a very clear distinction between Open Source software and Free software. When people refer to FOSS (Free Open Source Software), they have added BOTH "free" AND "open source" to their acronym - this is to make a clear distinction between software that is merely open source, and software that is both free (as in speech) and open source.
Sure, free means "free of charge" as well as "free speech". I wouldn't dare argue that one definition is more valid than another.
But in the context of "FOSS" or "F/OSS" or even "FLOSS" (Free/Libre Open Source Software), the whole reason to add "Free" to the more traditional "OSS" was to convey "Free as in speech."
Why does it matter? I think Sun wants to confuse the community, and make people think that they are on a bandwagon that they *are not on*. I think Jonathan Schwartz knows what the "free" in FOSS means, and intentionally misused it to make people think that he was really buying into FOSS, when in fact, he hasn't, at least with respect to the the JVM and class files. This is the exact reason Apache Harmony was created.
If this doesn't make sense, try downloading the "Free" Sun JDK from anywhere other than java.sun.com. Try getting it to come bundled with a Linux distribution. You can't do these things, because it *isn't* free, they just don't make you pay for it (at least, for now).
The only other point I want to make is that the "free beer" definition buys you something right *now* - the ability to download the Sun JDK without them charging you for it. If you're getting it without paying, what's the big deal? The big deal is that tomorrow, they *could* start charging for it. And then you can only run as long as it takes for you to need some new feature, or support for new hardware or a new OS. Then you pay.
If it were really free, you don't just get it now, but you also get a guarantee that it will always be available free in some form, as long as people need it and are willing to work on it. And really, that is a big difference.
- I choose to support a culture that fosters and encourages the open development of software and hardware, allowing me to profit from the shared wisdom and ability of like-minded people towards the end of commercial lock-in and discouragement of fully enjoying my creative impulses with regards to computing.
- I like not having to pay for software when I don't have to.
The ideals are all well and good, but I wouldn't bet that they are the prime motivation for people to switch. There's very little to be upset about; who cares what the initial reasons are if the end result is more users developing a personal interest and stake in the rationale for open development methods and willingly sharing what they create?Advocates would do better to recognize this than go after this guy for not quite getting the message right -- the users themselves would be quite turned off if they had to understand and adopt the full ideology (never create closed software, try to earn a living off providing support or alternatively as a waiter, never use closed solutions if open solutions exist) before using the software. Carrot before stick and all that.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
and i've posted this anonymously for a good response. The definition of "free" in terms of OSS seems to be misinterpreted all the time by various people in the community or in this case, a multi million dollar business.
So, let me ask someone who can give me a clear and definitive response - what is free software, and how far can you push 'free' software to the point where it becomes worth the time & effort spent in to producing or maintaining it?
If I created program A, released the source code, and it became a huge success - how can I possibly expect to make any money off of it? I'd love to pay my bills with charity, but unfortunately, I cannot.
Why should someone create a program to go in a retail linux distribution for example,(SuSe/Mandrake/Redhat) and not expect to receive compensation from it? I'm being serious here - I can understand why people make the mistake, you're basically asking to get something for nothing, and everyone knows nothing is truly for free.on hardware that they bought, and for what?
We already have this: "Open Source".
It has no confusing conotations with price, no confusing conotations with ownership, and no confusing conotations with petty politics.
It seems obvious that Sun is very much through the Looking Glass, these days.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
sig?
The possibilities are endless. There would be a plethora or double recursive acronyms used:
- GNU/Finf
- WINE is finf!
And so on.
I actually only understood this recently, and it was probably reading something here on /. or linked from here: it IS, surprisingly, about freedom for the SOFTWARE, and NOT the user or programmer!
At least that's how I understand it now.
tmegapscm
no manual entry found for 'Microsoft's $2billion bought a lot'
Independent.
Untied.
No-strings.
Commodity.
True but software that is open source isn't necessarily free by the FSF's definition.
Well, when exactly did the word gay start to mean homosexual? I never received an email or a fax from the department of home affairs saying that gay now means homo...
Oh well, what the hell...
Guess who needs "a life."
You're new here, aren't you?
Although I admire your comedic talents, I'd like to point out that your suggestion of acronym is NOT recursive...
If it weren't for that it would've been a very funny post.
tmegapscm
Pah. BSD isn't free. You have to retain copyright notices and avoid claiming an endorsement from the author. What a burden! Only software in the public domain offers true freedom.
Not all those who wander are lost.
Can someone please explain this "free as in beer" thing to me? I have seen this term used for a long time and I still don't understand it, being that I don't drink alcohol or associate with anyone that does.
So this thing keeps going right over my head.
I'm not trolling, I totally serious..
Thanks..
Lets end all these issues by calling OUR definition of free by a different word. Take their power away.
I usually use Free as opposed to free.
I never received an email or a fax from the department of home affairs saying that gay now means homo...
(Emphasis mine.)
(I likes me jokes as I likes me whoors.)
All Free Software is Open Source, but not all Open Source is Free Software.
To further cloud the issue there is Copyleft which is a specific type of Free Software which is intended to give rights to the user and contributers and protect them. (GPL is the only Copyleft I know about, but I'm sure there are others).
BSD and MIT licenses are not Copyleft, but they are Free Software and by extension Open Source Licenses. APSL, CDDL, Aladdin, etc are Open Source licenses, but not Free Software licenses.
Maybe we should just make everything we want to give away for free as Public Domain and not fret about all these complexities anymore.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Exactly. No one would ever play political games over the meaning of terms like "open standard" or "open format" for instance. Nobody would dream of releasing a patent encumbered operating system with a name like "OpenSolaris" or anything like that. And certainly no one has ever been confused enough to think that something like Java is open source just because it comes with source code. No confusion or petty politics here.
Oh, wait...
Not all those who wander are lost.
also, can all the deluded shareware authors stop categorizing crippleware, nagware, shareware, demoware etc as freeware. thanks!
You mean, as in GAY Ain't Younix (or GAY Ain't Yours)? It's a little "redneck" for me, but otherwise okay.
Carthago delenda est!
Sorry, but I think you're all full of shit.
If "free software" meant you could get the source, use the software freely, change it and feed it back into the system.... BUT you had to pay $1000 to be part of the "community" that could do this, VERY FEW people would pay.
Free software is all about using other people's works without paying.
Flame on, flame off... but you know I'm right.
No? So the price is NOT the issue you claim it is.
If it doesn't work, then free (as beer) is still too expensive.Actually, 90%+ of the programmers work for companies that do not sell software.
They work for companies who do customize code or write in-house apps.
So, you're correct only if you count Maggie's Dog Grooming as one company and IBM as one company. And so what if you do? Your metric is meaningless in that case.
How about "Open Source"?
99% of people who own cars hardly ever open the hood, let alone do anything to the "stuff" they see under it.
99% of people who own houses hardly ever do major repairs on them, despite the fact that home contruction techniques are common knowledge.
99% of people who eat don't know how to prepare anything more than the most basic of foods, preferring to eat pre-packaged or restaurant foods.
99% of people who know how to write don't write novels, they just read them on occasion.
99% of people who watch the news really don't do much more than complain or worry about the bad things they see.
99% of the people who read this won't understand that your argument that most people don't use the source is irrelevant to the value of it's availability.
(Percentages in the above statements may be off due to rounding or arbitrary selection because it sounded good.)
Maybe we should just make everything we want to give away for free as Public Domain and not fret about all these complexities anymore.
Bad idea. If you make your source code public domain, then people can do *anything* with it - like modify it slightly and then sell it as their own. They don't have to distribute the source code, they don't have to give you credit, they don't have to do anything they don't feel like doing. For all practical intents and purposes, your saying, "Here. I did all this work. Now go make money off of it, and keep every penny."
---
LEEROY JENKINS!!!
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
I would. If you use the phrase "free software" with anyone who hasn't already been introduced to the FSF's definition, what will be their immediate assumuption for its meaning? That the software has no cost. Even worse, what will be their confidence that their assumed meaning is correct? It will be very high. This means that anyone who wants to use the phrase "free software" to mean "free as in freedom" has a constant, uphill battle to fight to avoid being misunderstood.
Because of this, I would argue that the phrase "free software" continues to be a poor choice, and should be changed. I have tried to think of a suggestion for something better, and I wonder how the phrase "Clear Software" would go over? Think of "Clear" as in transparent--able to see the source--and in open horizons for the code's use, and even in having a clear conscience. It at least avoids being immediately misunderstood like the term free software does, and sounds better than something like Emancipated Software, Libre Software, Freed Software, Unenslaved Software, Liberty Software, Liberated Software, etc.
If you don't like it, feel free to suggest something else!
..wayne..
And as a user, I am free to write or modify the software I use
Just so. As a user, you are free. The software isn't. It is controlled by some entity - that's why it's licenced. The form of control the software is under keeps it in the realm of allowing you the freedom to change it. Of course, there are many licences like this. The GPL forces you to make your additions or amendments available in such a way as to accord another user the freedom to modify your changes.
So while the software is also going to probably be free (of money purchase cost) at the point of use, it isn't free in any other sense, especially when you consider that you're not free to keep your changes to yourself if you decide to re-distribute a GPL'd work.
I think it should be called Stallman Software and then we wouldn't keep having this silly strife about words.
I think he said what he meant, with full awareness of what all the different definitions of free are, as they are applied to software.
What is more, I think he is right, it IS what MOST people find compelling. Most people do not care about any of the other rights available as pertain to free and open software. What most people care about is that the price is zero. That is all he said, it is just his opinion (and mine FWIIW). This is not a news story...
Clever signature text goes here.
""I want to talk about FOSS -- free and open source software. Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free... and so the free part is what we've been focused on," said Schwartz."
By using the term 'free and open source', there should be no problem with defining free as 'free as in beer' since the 'open source' part implies free as in speech. The fact that he thinks the free as in beer part is the best part is his opinion, which he is entitled to have.
Vote for Pedro
I suggest "Stallman Software". That's all that really fits.
And if you run privoxy, you can rewrite "Free Software" into "Stallman Software" and you know here you are.
Please. For the sanity of us all. End the "free... and by free we mean..." crap.
If the software was not Free (as in freedom) not nearly as much of it would be free (as in no cost).
I agree 100% At work, we use Tomcat, Linux and Apache serverside. We use Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, Apache Commons for developement. We do so, purely because they cost nothing to buy.
In our line of business, we'd be better off with Websphere or one of the other 'heavyweight' J2EE containers, but those cost serious wonga.
We use WindowsXP and 2000 for our development - a sure sign that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" (tm) because if it was - we'd be using it!
The "as in beer" definition is just a shorthand for free of charge -- so it's really the same as free of licensing restrictions.
In any case, the name isn't catching on; it's persistently misinterpreted. Time to call it "open source" and tell the FSF to EAD.
What's the definition af beer? People keep saying that beer is not free as in free software, but how about the Open Source beer?
http://www.voresoel.dk/
Richard Stallman without anger is like Diana Ross without the Supremes: both have less than stellar performances, and both still need new hairdressers.
Are you saying that you didn't get the memo!?
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Seriously, sun has been pretending to support the open source movement for years now. Wake me up when they really do something for us.
The GPL is NOT free. It puts huge restrictions on the distribution of the code that are mostly incompatible with anyone, god forbid, trying to make a living off non-enterprise software.
If you put something in the public domain and let it go with no strings attached, that's free software. That's not what the GPL is, saying anything else is misleading.
Considering one of the leading open source projects is named GIMP, I say go for it.
In fact, just pick the absolute worst name for everything in the community.
"Hey, man, I installed FartSmell 2.4 on my new AssLicker distribution. You wouldn't believe how fast the new HookerPuke drivers run SquirtIntestine 4!"
Comment of the year
> Very few people and companies customize the software or utilize the source code in any way.
According to a study in Western Europe, you (and he) are quite wrong! While one might expect that the zero-dollar price tag would be the big incentive, companies are actually quite willing to pay for software if they think they're getting value for their dollar, and it's the quality and flexibility of Free/Libre/Open Source Software that is the real attraction among those who are actually installing and deploying it.
From the article I linked: "industries that treated software as a commodity were less likely to have open-source deployments." (Emphasis mine.)
I can't speak for your motivations, but I certainly didn't replace the software that came with my computer with a copy of Debian because I wanted to save money! I already had the opaque, insecure, virus-ridden monstrosity known to the world as MS Windows right there! And as for applications, well, I know where to get tons of free Winapps, and have for years and years. No, money was not at all a factor in my decision.
Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free... and so the free part is what we've been focused on."
That is so far from a coherent sentence it's frightening.
Developer A: I just used code from this Gay Software project in my code... does that mean my code is... you know.. gay?
Developer B: Yes. Yes it does. Or if it isn't, then it's going to have to be...
And could we make that an online petition? Those are my favorite kind!
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
About GNAASD:
GNAASD (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGER SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGER SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS.
Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a SOFTWARE DEVELOPER
Are you a GAY NIGGER SOFTWARE DEVELOPER ?
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAASD (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAASD (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAASD member.
GNAASD (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER SOFTWARE DEVELOPER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAASD if you join today!
In Europe free means as in freedom, and nothing else. We have a separate word for gratis, gratis.
;-).
In US free has something to do with money. Oh well, at least you are not commies.
So what? they can never take what you've made away from you or away from anyone else. You should worry about yourself and your friends and not what total strangers might be doing.
If you're actually doing it for non gratis then why should it matter that you don't get credit for it? You can still put it on your resume. You either want something in exchange for your (hard) work or you don't. GPL is for people who want something, PD (and possibly BSD and MIT/X11) is for people who don't want something. Just because someone is not expecting money in return for their work doesn't put you morally above everyone else, especially when they are expecting something instead of money.
"they don't have to do anything they don't feel like doing." <-- now that's *real* freedom.
Now if you want to put a proprietary license on your software, or GPL or do cart wheels across the Golden Gate bridge, I don't really care. Just don't send me some DMCA notice telling me to delete all the software and documentation I wrote. That's just a mean thing to do.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Sorry if I didn't make the distinction clear. In my post every mention of Free Software (notice caps) is what the FSF considers to be Free Software. Versus freeware which is free as in gratis.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Frank's "Teenage Wind"
I got to be free
Free as the wind
Free is the way
I got to be
Maybe I'm lost
Maybe I sinned
I got to be
Totally free
FREE IS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO
PAY FOR NOTHING
OR DO NOTHING
WE WANT TO BE FREE
FREE AS THE WIND
People who know nothing about software and how it is made from source at least hear the extra word and pay a bit of attention, even if it's just a look in their eyes that tells me I need to explain.
People who know about source code understand what I mean.
Infuriate left and right
'Free as in speech'...
Meaning what exactly? Free as in speech implies freedom of speech, which means (at least to USians) that your government cannot limit most of what you wish to say. I just fail to understand how software relates to this since software is not generally political, religious, or any other classification that is given specific protections by the 1st amendment. "Freedom to learn" would be much more applicable, as in you are free to learn how the software works, if you choose, as you are provided the source.
None of the replacements for "free software" you mention work well, and this is usually cleared up in every FSF talk at the top of the Q&A session. Liberated/unenslaved/freed software doesn't work for software that was always free from the start (like GNU Emacs). Entities can't be liberated if they were always free. This same problem plagues all but one of your other suggestions. Liberty software might have worked, but by now you're about 20 years too late. The term "free software" is already listed in the most widely-used free software license, the GNU GPL. Changing terms now would not clearly help.
But you also have the problem of specifying how software is free -- what freedoms do you get, exactly? Instead, I recommend taking the time to explain what software freedom means. This will require people to stop believing that the right combination of two words will accurately convey ideas of arbitrary complexity.
You're not alone in your thoughts on this issue, in fact the people who founded the Open Source Initiative (and thus started the open source movement) thought as you do and coined the term "open source", in part, to do this job.
As RMS points out, they too failed:
Digital Citizen
One could consider the two free's part of the same usage. When an object or person is held to a bond, release is usually by monetary exchange. This is similar to the concept of 'buying one's freedom'. IANAHBIWTV (I am not a historian, but I watch TV.)
Payment is about exchange of property. Slaves were also considered property. When something is free, it is no longer bound as any particular person's property. So, free as in beer and free as in freedom... it's not apples and oranges, it's red apples and green apples, if you look at it from a property standpoint.
Put it this way, if you had to pay $1 million to get GPL-like rights to a programs code, how is that any better, really, than buying one of those MS developer licenses to sneak a peak at the code? The difference is the free as in beer part. If it were GPL, one person could purchase the code, then give it away free. So, you can't have one without the other, not under GPL. Without any "free as in beer part", you cannot have "free as in freedom" as it exists in something like the GPL.
That's just reality. If you couldn't get GNU, linux, BSD in a free-as-in-beer package, nobody (as in those of us who don't collect every OS known to mankind) would give one rat's butt about it. Guys like RMS need a reality check. The market exists because it's free as in beer AND free as in freedom.
Just look at Firefox. Anyone honestly think that if it even cost $5 that it would be anywhere NEAR as popular as it is? Yeah, me neither. "Open source" is just a benefit for us geeks, but of no obvious benefit to non-programming users. "Free" is an obvious benefit to all.
BTW, you can have free as in beer and NOT free as in freedom. BUT, you really can't have free as in freedom WITHOUT free as in beer.
Being that it is the one that most people see the instant benefit in, and that it is necessary for the other "freedom", imho, Free As In Beer is not only a valid talking point, but may be the more-valid talking point to most.
Oh well, words to the wind... I'm 99.9999% sure RMS isn't reading this and saying to himself, "Damn, the man's got a point!"
I8-D
Personally, I find the /. crowd to be somewhat hypocritical on the subject.
For some reason it's okay to ignore an author's wishes and license agreements when it suits them (downloading commercial software), but it's not okay when someone wants to ignore the author's wishes when software is published under, say, the GPL.
Either you respect their wishes and agreements... or you don't.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
... that this Jonathan Schwartz guy would fit right in here on slashdot.
I'm kidding, Rob! Kidding!
You are dreaming if you think SUN bought StarOffice so they could open source it. They did it to compete with Microsoft. No corporation does things purely for bennies. They do things to make money, whether immediately or indirectly.
This applies to IBM, RedHat, Novell, everyone.
You are easily misled if you think SUN bought StarOffice altruistically. They deserve no more open source credit for this than for designing SPARC chips or using 68Ks back in the day. It was a pure business decision.
What they do deserve blame for is intentionally misusing the word free to mislead their audience. That is hijacking a term for their own profit. I don't steal SPARC chips or SUN workstations or servers. They damn well have no excuse for stealing that word.
Infuriate left and right
Who is "defin[ing] a word to mean whatever you want" or "[g]etting upset that someone used the word 'free' to mean 'no cost'"?
I can point to where the FSF patiently acknowledges the ambiguity and patiently explains why they are focusing on the freedom meaning (including explaining which specific freedoms you get). I've heard speeches where Eben Moglen, counsel for the FSF, uses the word to mean zero cost and freedom in the same speech.
As for "hacker", the term did not originally mean what the popular press means when they use the term. In fact, there was a book called "Hackers", which includes some information about RMS, which referred to the old usage of that term.
Digital Citizen
And he has to offer his OS free because of linux and he doesn't want to.
Anyone with Sun stock hates linux.
Strangely, the parent is ontopic :|
The unofficial
Basically, I want to know if I link in GNU/Angry code, am I forced to redistribute all that anger or can I just make use of it without restriction, like "fprintf()" in GNU's libc?
In other words, is GNU/Angry a library, or a full application?
There's nothing gnu about his anger.
Oh wait, that's three words...well, two words and a curly thingamajig. Wait, Wait, I've got it. In true GNU fashion: replace Free with FAIB, which stands for "Free As In Beer".
Oh, crap! Now you know why I suck at Scrabble.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Any piece of software in RH6 can be recompiled against current systems as needed. If needed, most of the components of RH6 could be run in a chroot jail or the entire distro in a virtual machine. In the FOSS world it just isn't necessary to support ancient binaries for upty million years. Without losing access to one shred of data, there are clear upgrade paths to new versions of RH or even other distros altogether. The only real way you can get hurt is if you're stuck with a proprietary app that only runs on RH6. The basic idea most of the time is to avoid precisely that situation.
Much of what ESR says includes namecalling and an ahistorical view of how the free software community developed. In his most recent interview (covered elsewhere on /.), he begins by dismissing the need for the GNU GPL without acknowledging that the license was in widespread use well before his movement began, that this license was not written to benefit businesses (unlike his open source movement), and that persistant framing of the GPL as being "open" code tries to link his movement to the intention of the GPL (despite the fact that the GPL was written by the FSF many years before ESR's movement began, thereby clearly showing that the GPL was defending software freedom without ESR or the open source movement).
He is not alone in framing issues in this deceptive way. Mark Webbink's essay on "open source" licensing (which fails to use the concept of copyleft because that is tied to the free software movement and the open source movement struggles to get away from any discussion of software freedom), and other notable open source proponents speak or write similarly.
Digital Citizen
Where, exactly, can I hear Stallman "shrieking that the word [pirate] only has a single proper meaning"? Certainly not in the list of words you might want to avoid. Without any references to primary sources, your post is highly overmoderated and is properly identified as namecalling, thus making the post either flamebait or a troll worthy of a lower score.
Digital Citizen
is victim of misunderstanding of the word "free" it orinaly mean free, for freedom, (freedom to put tekno sound where you want when you want) but it is now used by some as "$0" which is wrong the same for the white label tekno music, which is often released under creative commons, it is "free" music but not $0 music sorry for the english--
The memo was only for straight people.
I like your idea. It would help me to have a current definition of troll. Someone likely needs to define it. In you case, you mean "commercially motivated interloper." Another definition would mean a person acting as a participant in order to provide re-directing misinformation. (?) You know - like Sun Myung Moon - owner of the "Washington Times" newpaper.
Some days, in my capacity as an American, I want to roll up in a flea infested carpet and expire.
Can someone please get their s+++ together?
PS DIE MICROSoFT, DIE !!!!
It's pretty amazing if you think about it. All these arguments all come down to a shortcoming of the English language. In Spanish it would be impossible to have this argument. The words Libre and Gratis are unambiguous.
XML UI Browser/Platform
Damn unions.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
'free' is important to freedom. in developing countries where the average wage is 5000$ a year or something, like china, india, or mexico, all the GPL in the world doesnt impact your freedom.
if you want people to interpret "Free Software" as "Freedom Software", then you should had called it "Freedom Software"... Dumb asses ...
No, honestly. I have a few friends who develop open-source software...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I suggest we change the name to "Low-Cost" software, as in "It's a lower cost to your freedoms", or "Sure, you can use Microsoft Windows, but their anti-piracy software spy on you and demand a high-cost in freedom".
And I mean, it's less pedantic then saying "GNU" or "Free" right?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Not to bee to much of a pedant, but we should start to use non-Christan dating schemes.
AD is scientifically referred to as C.E. The Common Era.
BeforeChrist is B.C.E
All the Atheists reading Slashdot will thank you.
(Probably not thank God though!)
There's free as in beer.
There's free as in speech.
There's free with a two year annual contract.
There's buy one, get one free.
There's free if you contribute a small donation.
So many versions of free. But when you're dealing with people in the software business it seems that what's free for one must be the only form of free. What works for me is the only form of free, anything else is evil.
When are you people going to learn that ones size doesn't fit all. Some restrictions do apply and some assembly may, or may not be required. Offer might expire. Act now!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Seriously. The phrase "Free Software" as RMS uses it is so worthless that starting from scratch with a new term would be better than continuing this debacle.
....
If I said I was going to give you "Free Accomidation," would you take that as:
1. You can stay at my place for no cost
or
2. I am transferring full rights of my place to you, including the ability to change the wallpaper in my bathrooms, rearrange my living room, and if you wanted, bulldoze the house and put up a tent?
If Toyota has a contest for a "FREE CAR," do they give you the car, or the car + rights to the technology in the car + the plans to make the car + schematics of the electrical system + source code to the ECU +
I mean, for fuck's sake, call it "Unrestricted Software." There. I've done it. Problem solved.
Hell, it even has a cool meme. "'US' is software for all of us".
Free means if I develop on OSS, I should be free to NOT show the code. The GNU removes this freedom from me. Just like Stallman (a typical retarded American) to try and pin yet another self-described definition on the word "Freedom". Most Americans don't know what the word means, and even less will do anything to maintain it. Stallman is a slave, as is Cox and the biggest loser of them all: Torvalds. All can rot in hell for all I care, and the world will be a beter place when they get there. Cheers!
PUBLIC DOMAIN! PUBLIC DOMAIN! PUBLIC DOMAIN! The freest most open software is public domain. Nothing can top that. If code was all public domain then developers wouldn't have to worry about licenses, they could just use any code...
-- You're too stupid to be an atheist.
How about Unbound. As in Prometheus who open sourced (read liberated) fire from the proprietary gods and gave it to man. Sure, he and Richard Stallman get their liver eaten out by immortal vultures (read proprietary lovin' hypocrites) for eternity. But, that's the price for caring for humanity - it just doesn't pay.
Personally, I don't see why anyone would care for a population that couldn't give a rat's ass if you spent your life fighting to improve their lives. It's easier just to be indifferent.
= 9J =
Oh man that reminds me of my three word conversation killer:
"WAR IS GAY"
Its offensive to absolutely everyone and conveys a positive and negative message simultaneously.
And besides what is war other than a bunch of guys standing in a field all waving their dicks at one another? Its just a great big dick-waving contest.
And thats gay, unless you are the only guy on both sides (as King Missile so eloquently put it).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
As much as most FOSS fanatics might hate it, their wares exist in a world in which profit is a great motive, i.e. the business world. Most folks in the business could give a rats ass about the difference between "free" and "free."
"Do I have to pay for it?"
"No."
"I like it!"
Java is the defacto programming language of the business world. The folks at Sun have to live in, and sell to, and speak to that world. Yes, they also have to live in the FOSS world as well. They bridge the gap between the two. Can you whiny bastards get used to that?
I think you mean a thesaurus... the dictionary verifies that "free software" is a valid term.
Luke-Jr
Free software works similar to an invitation system. If someone wants you to pay $1000 for an invite, find someone else who will invite you for less (or gratis). Freedom to invite others is included with membership!
Luke-Jr
What rock did you crawl out from under? Public domain has no restrictions whatsoever, while BSD does impose some. That makes BSD less free than public domain by the same logic that makes the GPL less so than BSD. License violations have nothing to do with this.
Not all those who wander are lost.
That's not a recursive acronym. "Finf is not free" would be a recursive acronym. (As are GNU and WINE.)
My other car is first.
War is for size queens?
Gay indeed.
There are several types of freedom associated with Free Software.
Freedom to share it with your friends
Freedom from licensing tracking (a big one)
Freedom from hassle wrt the vendor (product activation).
Freedom to choose who is going to supply bugfixes.
Most of my customers who are running Linux are doing so because of one of these freedoms.
Now, for Apache, most of us don't have to look at it, but it is nice to know that if I needed to (I am somewhat proficient in C), I could probably fix a bug or two.
But what about another program that runs on Apache? I have several customers who run SQL-Ledger and I supply customizations to either meet locale-specific requirements (Greek tax reporting law) or industry-specific requirements (retail environments). The fact that they don't have to rely on one vendor makes a big difference.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Me: I use this operating system called Linux on my laptop. It's Open Source.
Friend: How much did it cost?
Me: It's "Free" as in free speech. I downloaded it.
Friend: It didn't cost you anything?
Folks, this is the economy of Walmart, Target, Costco, and Home Depot fed by 99-cent menus at McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's. The most important factor that attracts every person I have introduced to "FLOSS" is the price. Richard can be the idealist. Someone has to inspire the troops. But, money walks and bullshit talks. In the post-boom economy, anything that can enable folks to get work done on a computer without affecting the bottom line, either in terms of direct cost or avoiding the BSA, can be very enticing. Sure I yammer on about access to the code and how the code will always be open, etc, but free-as-in-beer is what sells the product the new folks.
Just my experience in the trenches....
-LLM
Annoy a Conservative...
And it would be a good word, actually...
Ignore this signature. By order.
Why can't you read Solaris 10 source or talk to a Solaris developer? Source is downloadable and many developers keep on-line blogs and there are Solaris mail lists and so on.
Your comments apply to MS Windows code but Solaris is now Open Source
I'm not sure, to be honest. Personally I think the software is often of better quality, and there's definitely more choice. This might be a direct result of the open development methods, but I don't think you need to appreciate that to care about a lot of the advantages besides the fact that it costs nothing.
A clear example of this should be web browsers -- if the only advantage of Firefox was that it cost nothing, all those people would do just as well to have stayed with MSIE. Firefox just happens to be superior to current versions of IE, in a variety of ways.
Even if Windows was free, I think I'd still prefer to use Linux, or BSD or OSX (perhaps), or some other similar system, as long as it worked was was well enough supported for me to be able to use comfortably. I like the way that all of these work much more than I like Windows. The exact OS or license doesn't concern me as much as the publication of API's, and so on.
Lock-in is a huge consideration for me -- I like retaining the choice to switch products. eg. A lot of people use KDE for their desktop, but some people choose Gnome. I don't actually like either of them, but I can use WindowMaker without having to sacrifice the use of any application that's intended for either Gnome or KDE. And if I ever decide that I want to switch, I can. There's simply less lock-in with the Open Source way of doing things, because everyone's sharing their code and API's and making them available for others.
When I used Windows, up until a couple of years ago, I was just stuck with it and couldn't easily move away. A lot of my data was stored in proprietary formats that could only be opened by proprietary applications that would only run in Windows. Breaking away from that model was very hard, but I'm glad I was able to.
The biggest problem that I have with the Microsoft way of doing things is that everyone is stuck with the Microsoft way of doing things. This is okay if Microsoft gets it right, but every time they don't, hundreds of millions of people have to suffer rather than be able to use an alternative.
Today I still see people using Windows every day, having all the same little problems that exist as a direct result of Microsoft making mistakes in the way they've designed things. Even if these people had an opportunity to realise that there's an alternative way of doing things, though, they wouldn't be able to. Microsoft has them nailed to the Windows platform -- both through Microsoft's own products, and through the development model that it encourages for other Windows product vendors.
One last thing that comes to mind is marketing. I've recently been doing a survey of off-the-shelf website search tools (for a work-related project). One thing I noticed was that the open source products were a lot more direct and honest than the commercial products about their features and what they were actually capable of. The commercial products, in absolute contrast, tended to be 90% vapour in their feature descriptions. They were non-specific, they glossed over anything that probably wasn't handled well, and mostly unhelpful for getting actual information. Many didn't even state their price clearly -- I presume these are the ones who want to know how much money the customer has before deciding a cost.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the open source were better, but they simply stated more clearly up-front about exactly what they were and what they weren't, with few if any ulterior motives. If I'd been doing more than a survey, and if I was in a hurry, it would definitely have been much more likely for me to download and actually try out the open source ones.
That said, the arguments did get attention, and the point did get rubbed in when the answer to any question where the interviewer used that word was personal redefinitions of the words "free" and "open". I suppose in the time of the sound bite it just did have to happen the quick, nasty and IMHO stupid way.
I think that this discussion has been obscured by existing dual licensing models where the "free" version is free of charge, and the closed source version costs money.
Consider the following classic software dual licensing model:
- software costs $100 if you want just the binaries
- software costs $10K if you want the source code as well
- software costs $ 10 million if you want the source code plus unlimited rights for you and your customers and your customers' customers to use and redistribute the source code.
Technically, that $10 million version of the software is "free" as in freedom. But the price point is prohibitive. You cannot download the source code anywhere because nobody laid down the $10 million. You will end up using the closed source version, or not using that software at all.
The "free beer" aspect (or at least "affordable beer") of FOSS is important.
Thomas
Then how about we start calling it the software freedom movement and eliminate the confusion with "free as in beer".
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
He said, it was in his opinion and even indicated his bias. And yes, he _is_ correct.
The thing that "matters" most about free and open-source software is that it is free as in freedom, but free as in beer.
"Matters" means mattering to the user who acquires and uses the software. And by "user" I mean the majority and average user.
Ask your mother what she would pick:
1) Open-sourced OpenOffice for $50
2) Closed-source OpenOffice for $0
Unless your mother is RMS, I'll bet she'll choose option 2). Same goes for any, let's say, school district that chooses OpenOffice. Do they care that it's open-source more than it's $0? I'd wager that's a solid "NO".
Why not just call OSS "French Software", and let the fries-and-toast-eating masses sort it out for themselves?
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
I actually researched this once. In the early 1960s (1963?), the heterosexual community had largely figured out that "queer" meant "homosexual" and started using it as a slur. So in a weird sort of grassroots movement, homosexuals began referring to themselves as "gay" instead. I believe the term started in New York, although I could be wrong; I have a nagging doubt saying it was Chicago, and another saying "everything gay comes from San Francisco". The latter is almost certainly wrong.
The primary purpose of choosing the new term was to allow homosexuals to discuss their lifestyle in the presence of heterosexuals without identifying themselves as homosexuals. The moral propriety of this intent is left as an exercise for the reader.
Insert the usual soapbox lecture about subcultures co-opting words and refusing to let them evolve naturally without that subculture's approval of the evolution. You've heard it before, pretend I said it again. While you're at it, pretend it was really smart and convincing.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
Over the last half dozen years, Sun has constantly been trying to redefined the meaning of terms like "open standard", "free", and "open source". At the same time, they have built up an elaborate system of licenses, copyrights, and patents around the Java platform. Altogether, this has been an assault on FOSS, an attempt to replace a free and open infrastructure with Sun proprietary software.
The recent pictures of Ballmer and McNealy hugging and kissing shouldn't surprise us: Sun has found its true religion, and McNealy wants to become Ballmer's Mini-Me.
Fortunately, it's not working. JDS is a failure, Java's adoption on FOSS platforms is unimportant, and Solaris will be a flop, too.
Fortunately, Sun can't take back software they released under true FOSS licenses in the past (like OpenOffice), although they keep trying to entangle even that software in their proprietary Java trap (by attempting to make OpenOffice dependent on Sun Java).
So, let's take your list of Sun's supposed contributions to open source.
OpenWindows,
Sun tried for years to kill off X11 and replace it with their proprietary, non-free window systems. When it became finally clear even to their own managers that their own customers were de-installing the crap Sun shipped and replacing it with X11, Sun finally dumped the remains of their failed efforts on the world as open source.
For you youngsters out there, you ought to know that virtually all Linux distros used Sun's OpenWindows windowing environment as the default in the early days - you can make a credible argument, in fact that it was that open source code that raised Linux up from the crowd, making it a "real" alternative to commercial Unix, especially since BSD was mired in lawsuits at the time.
I have used Linux since pretty much the day it came out, and that's complete nonsense. OpenWindows was a joke even on Sun workstations, and it was irrelevant on Linux.
OpenOffice (probably the largest and most important single body of software *ever* open sourced as a whole, and the only significant contribution that was a pure *gift* to the open source community, not just open-sourced for convenience)
OpenOffice open sourcing wasn't a "gift", it was a vital part of Sun's business strategy. It's good for the FOSS community that Sun was forced to choose a license that they couldn't weasel out of later. That's all one can say about that.
NFS (itself hugely important in the development of the whole idea of networked computing)
NFS is a piece of shit that is still a huge obstacle to UNIX adoption in work group environments.
Solaris itself (and that code has shown how far ahead Solaris really is in many areas that are vitally important if you want to use an OS in mission-critical, enterprise environments.)
Solaris is not doing well commercially. Technically, it's a bloated system suffering from second system effect. Solaris is irrelevant to mainstream computing and will have even less impact than Mach, Hurd, or Darwin.
Java (likewise, huge, and yes, it's really open-sourced - most of us don't care if the license is GPL compatible)
That's a blatant and dangerous misrepresentation of the facts. Java is not open source in any sense of the word. Sun Java source code is proprietary: if you as much as look at it, your future ability to work on anything related to Java implementations is severely limited.
Fortunately, people have been wising up to the lies and misrepresentations coming from people like you and Sun management. Sun is digging its own grave.
If he purposely lied about the meaning of somebody's trademark, he could easily be sued for defamation, destruction of a trademark, slander, libel, whatever the legal jargon is. If you feel like quibbling about the exact buzzword, knock yourself out.
The term Free Software is as close to a registered trademark as you will find, and this clown deliberately misused it to confuse people, to distort the meaning, to bring it down a peg or two, for his own gain.
Go ahead. Quibble about what is legal and what he can get away with because Free Software is not a registered trademark. You will only show how shallow your ethics are.
Infuriate left and right
I suppose it's not surprising that someone who believes in creationism has trouble with the facts and history when it comes to Sun corporate history.
I actually can't recall a single instance where Sun released open source software even just out of enlightened self-interest, let alone as a "gift". Quite the opposite: Sun was founded by taking BSD software and making it proprietary.
NFS, OpenWindows, and Solaris weren't open sourced long after they started declining. All three are also technically miserable. OpenOffice is technically OK (it wasn't written by Sun and it shows), but was released out of spite against Microsoft. Java isn't open source at all in any sense of the word--it's Sun proprietary, licensed source code, covered by copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
You could call the first one 'cost-free' or 'gratis' or 'no-charge' or 'zero-price' or something, and the second one 'unrestricted' or 'unhindered' or 'unbound' or 'unlimited' or 'independent' or even 'liberated' perhaps.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
What about all those "buy one get one free" offers I see at my local supermarket then?
C'mon! As somebody who uses software, there's nothing like that nice, good'old feeling when you find some pretty nifty free software.
Need a color? Try 100 random colors
Which do you think we are? Stupid or Altruistic? Modifications to PD software code would remain public for exactly zero minutes and give no-one any benefit. We, who progam give something of value, expect something back of value: whether as code or pay. Altruism need not have an element of enlightened self-interest. Only stupidity demands giving something to get nothing..
That said: feel free to commit any code you write into the public domain. For if you do; I can create a GPL'd version of any code you commit. Heck, it's just lying around. All I need is to add a 10% difference to put it back under copyright and under my license. Your code will become my code. Please. Be stupid. I'll be happy to be altruistic for you.
If everybody is free to brew their own beer, changing the recipe if they wish, customers get a lower long-term price. The variety of beers expands, so the customer can choose their favorite mico-brew if a big-batch factory lager is too bland for their palate.
If you run a night club, you use free beer on "Ladie's Night" as a marketing plan. If you like tasty home brews, you have an entirely different point of view. Understand that, and you understand why Sun and RMS use different definitions of "Free".
Free (C) and (TM) 1991 Richard Stallman?
Sun's Java Enterprise Edition (JEE) has been opened up as Project Glassfish under the CDDL. It even uses a database engine originally owned by IBM.
OK, so I am a day late with this reply, but I had to add this. I am using MythTV as 'Free' Software, to build a better TIVO. Now, the funny thing is, I have problem spent about three times as much money on the mythtv setup as I would have spent on Tivo or its brethren. The main reason for doing this? Because I dont have to worry about them changing the software under the covers on me, about features disappearing, about losing control to someone who would deny me my fair rights regarding TV content. I am in control about my Mythtv, and this give me freedom. OK, so the cost prevented this solution from costing 4 times a Tivo, but that was never the reason to use this software in the first place.