Slashdot Mirror
Google Reverses "Absurd" Mozilla Code Ban
Barence writes "Google has reversed its decision to ban projects created under the Mozilla Public License from being hosted on its Google Code site. Google banned the license in August, claiming it wanted to 'make a statement against open-source license proliferation' which it blamed for hindering the cross-pollination of code from one project to another. Chris DiBona, of Google's open source team, described its decision to ban the MPL as 'absurd,' citing the community's huge popularity." Jamie mentions that the issue was raised from the floor at OSCON at the Google Open Source Update panel, with DiBona on stage.
If there's a million "open source" licenses (which there are), it can become virtually impossible for code to move between projects with different licensing.
Frankly, given Google's record, I refuse to host any of my projects on Google Code, or to participate in the development of any projects hosted there. I use Sourceforge (has svn and ssh access) and Berlios.
The best way to fight against these proliferations is to release code that is multi-licensed. If you are the author of a code and fear OSS fragmentation, claim that you release your code under GPLv2, GPLv3, Mozilla License, Apache License, etc...
Maybe we should come up with a good acronym for a package of the most popular licenses...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
What does this mean, "advertising"? *pats ad-blocker and noscript* :)
which is totally what she said
You know you've just blocked Jamie Hyneman from using your code?
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
If open source code, is bound by a proprietary license, then it should be called proprietary open source, or POS for short.
Google Code allows GPL v2, GPL v3, or LGPL (as well as Artistic/GPL). If you want to make a statement and reduce license bloat, I suggest starting there.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Is it only me who thinks that while the ethos of OSS is "open and free for everyone", these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also" ?
Truly free code comes with no restrictions whatsoever, be it over publishing licence text, making source available, having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever.
Free means free. Anything else is so much BS on the part of the developer.
I don't use adblocker because I don't object to ads. I object to stupid abusive techniques whether they're used for ads or knock-knock jokes.
I am, as of now, going to get someone to pay me a nickel for everyone who makes an annoying, smug "Ad? What ad? I use adblock/noscript" comment on slashdot.
I have $.05 right now from this program, and predict I'll be filthy rich by the time the year's out.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
What exactly the difference between the MPL and the GPL is? Or the EPL(which is mentioned in TFA)? Because to my non legalese mind they look pretty much the same. They seem to require source upon request, list the places the license needs to be placed in the binaries,etc. I'm afraid I have to go with Google on this one. There are a whole bunch of open source licenses out there and the last thing anybody wants is for open source to become a giant legal minefield,as that just gives more ammo to the FUD that MSFT likes to spew about "the perils of open source". Personally I think the GPL and BSD licenses should be enough,one says you have to share while the other says do whatever you want,so what more would you need for an open source license? But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I use adblock and noscript too. And I think that your scheme has one minor flaw, I'm not paying you any thing, and neither is anyone else.
You should use the GNU GPL.
Google was right about this. And Google is right about this. They've certainly done a lot of bad things (e.g. China) but they got this case 105% right.
Until we figure out how to work around the second law of thermodynamics, nothing can truly be free as you describe it. Open source software is just bought and paid for by people who are more concerned with being able to modify and fix it than with getting it for zero dollars. Just look at the shareware and freeware industry; very few of the stuff available in the 90's is around now. Those projects didn't ship source, and so they died untimely deaths. Any software that doesn't preserve its own source is essentially committing suicide.
By banning MPL and then reversing the ban once the discussion heated up, Google has "made a statement".
What would help is for some OSS lawyer to come up with a simplified menu of licenses something like Creative Commons. You do need at least BSD and GPL, but I agree there are way too many licenses. We non-legal geeks just want simple choices like "share alike" (GPL), "attribution" (BSD), "non commercial" (like M$ "open" licenses - not in the open source spirit but ok when used sparingly).
Maybe you should try using AdBlock to only block those advertisers that engage in such practises then? It's not an all-or-nothing affair.
[insert witty comment here]
Here's a possible solution to the license proliferation / cross pollination problem of F/OSS software projects: Each open source compliant license could include within its terms specific permission to use portions of its project's code in software licensed under another open source compliant license. It could be called an Open Source Cross-Pollination Clause or something like that, and the wording would be identical across licenses. It would be a sort of "UCC of software licenses." As an example of what might happen if this clause were included in, say, the Apache license, the Mozilla license, and the Eclipse license: Suppose there are a group of functions in Apache that produce some result that might be useful in a web browser. The Mozilla project could copy that code verbatim, insert it into Mozilla, and perhaps make modifications to it later on. The copy of that portion of code would essentially become licensed under the Mozilla license. The Eclipse project could then find that code useful and copy it into Eclipse, perhaps modifying it further. Now there are three copies of that code, each licensed under the same license as the broader code that contains it. If, say, all OSI approved licenses decided to insert this Cross-Pollination Clause, it would completely solve the problems of license compatibility.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
As the proud owner of my own Google Code project, I can attest to the need for freedom and avoidance of any restrictions of any kind in Google Code. Are they looking to be an incubator of great new ideas? They let the mad scientists play! With the sad killing off of the GooglePages phenomenon, we're all sad to see the great benefactor turn Corporate on us. Please Google, stop crapping on your brand. Come back from the Dark Side.
Same here, I jsut use flashblock. You can put banner ads all over the place but don't go needlessly hogging my resources.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
* Slashdot sues you for your nickel *
Hey, we have to make that money back somehow...
I object to ads. If you want access to my eyes to sell your product, pay me.
Maybe with text ads or static images? Google's ads make it through NoScript and Adblock. I've even disabled Adblock on Slashdot, so all you need to get through is NoScript.
Alternatively you could just use my handy "obnoxious elitist prick" plugin for a mere 40 USD a year subscription fee?
Instead of whining about ads, I tried adblock and it works a treat. I was just trying to point out that if you don't like the ads, get rid of them. If I had $0.05 for every time I saw someone complain about ads, I'd be able to buy a newspaper or something by now!
which is totally what she said
I mean, Mozilla Foundation is located *AT* one of Google's complex buildings on Landings Drive in Mountain View; I can't imagine what issue they could possibly have with the MSL. This was either a clueless person at Google with too much power or something more political.
I suppose it would possible to dissect license agreements into numerous 'attributes' (e.g. freedom to copy, freedom to modify, freedom to use for any purpose, etc.) which can be compared and where two licenses do not have any conflicting attributes, they could be considered compatible.
The FSF already discuss computability with GPL and licenses that are compatible and incompatible with the GNU GPL so they must have done this already.
The MPL and the GPL are very different. The MPL is closer to the LGPL and the EPL than it is to the GPL
One of the easiest ways to think of it was give by Dave Johnson back in 2006. You can place most open source licenses into one of three categories:
Hope that helps.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
They are "paying" us to look at the ads, by giving us otherwise free services or content.
If what a website has to offer is worthless to you, don't visit it and you won't add to their revenue by seeing the ads.
Blocking ads doesn't do anything to convince the bastards to change their evil ways, you have to let sites know that they're hurting themselves by using Vibrant's advertising to have an effect.
Once you go DVCS, you never go back.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
They are paying you. Have you ever noticed that you don't need to pay anything access the websites (like the one you're on right now), public broadcast tv shows, public broadcast radio stations, etc that you enjoy every day?
These all exist because the companies who want access to your eyes are subsidizing most, if not all, of the costs to produce them.
If you disagree with the methods used to advertise you have two choices: send a message by not utilizing their services, or don't.
That being said, I do use some basic ad-blocking to prevent inappropriate popups and content on sites I am not as familiar with. However, in general, I choose to only do business with sites that don't use intrusive advertising.
I wish there was a Firefox addon that would block self-satisfied Adblock/NoScript users posting to Slashdot.
You could just set your comment viewing settings to downmod all 'insightful' and 'interesting' posts - I'm sure that would get most of them.
which is totally what she said
> I have created a new type of open source license, that allows my code to be
> used in any other project, regardless of what license it uses
Well gee, you just reinvented the MIT license.
They don't care.
The Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) is a free software license.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
14 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
I'd use Flashblock, but there's so many Flash sites that I go to (games, flash loops, etc.). Flashblock didn't seem to have any sort of whitelist capability. Or am I missing something?
Anyway, doesn't NoScript effectively do the same thing as Flashblock anyway nowadays?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I'd use Flashblock, but there's so many Flash sites that I go to (games, flash loops, etc.). Flashblock didn't seem to have any sort of whitelist capability. Or am I missing something?
If you are using Firefox, you missed "Options" button in plugin settings. Also, you can right click on blocked flash frame to bring up popup menu with various actions, including plugin settings and an option to always allow flash from current site.
Too late. I didn't mind the good adds, but I got tired and removed them all. Not only that, but now I install Adblock on every PC I have to clean as a security measure.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Do you walk around with your eyes closed all the time?
I mean, Mozilla Foundation is located *AT* one of Google's complex buildings on Landings Drive in Mountain View; I can't imagine what issue they could possibly have with the MSL.
Yes, because liking or not liking a licence is determined solely by physical proximity. Idiot.
Chris DiBona resigns to "spend more time with his family"...
MEN3
I have a MPL licensed project on Google Code. I am just wondering when they banned it, and how this ban was communicated with the users?
There is nothing in the google code blog (which I regularly check for updates through RSS) as I can see it, and I have not received any information at all as manager of an MPL project.
What consequences would the ban have on already existing projects?
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Enough people acting, and they'll go the way of X10.
just solving the problem for yourself won't make it happen, though.
If everyone does it , it will :
Eventually , since no ads shown , none of them are clicked , and so the ads don't result in more sales and gain. Soon you won't get much for allowing ads to be placed on your website , and so it will decrease rapidly.
The problem is ads aren't bad on itself , intrusive ads are. So you need to punish only those ads.
It's possible to compile blocklists in adblock. Maybe someone should start making that , only for annoying ads , and update it frequently.That might work eventually.
Slipping shoelaces ?
He didn't say it was determined solely by physical proximity, idiot. He said that Google lets Mozilla Foundation use one of it's buildings, and hence inferred that the companies had good relations. Nothing idiotic or unreasonable in that line of thinking.
I personally find it easier to use NoScript to block most animated/generally irritating ads (and disabled gif animation for the rest). Sure I miss out on some inoffensive flash ads, but meh how many of those actually exist?
These all exist because the companies who want access to your eyes are subsidizing most, if not all, of the costs to produce them.
A lot, but not all. BBC TV and radio is paid by a licensing fee from UK TV owners (I'm not sure if they take any from other countries), and presumably from selling their shows to other networks, and selling DVDs etc. So the BBC themselves may advertise their products, but they are not paid by advertisers!
As for websites, most probably start off as someone's pet project, but then if they get popular they start to accrue ads, to at the very least help pay for the bandwidth. http://www.weebls-stuff.com/ started off as a very well designed website, and is now back to being fairly tasteful (though that could just be because I'm blocking ads, oops :p ), but at the height of his fame, it was chock full of seizure inducing craptacular flash banner ads. Sometimes people lose sight of why they even are running their site when the big advertising carrot gets dangled in front of their face. It's understandable, but still disappointing.
which is totally what she said
"If everyone does it", but everyone isn't going to do it.
80% of "everyone" are using Internet Explorer, not Firefox.
Of the remaining 20%, the majority don't use ANY firefox extensions at all. I know people who picked Camino over Firefox on the Mac purely because they wanted flashblock built in.
It's like spam. If everyone filtered spam and nobody responded to it, we wouldn't have a spam problem, but that just doesn't happen, so the only way to fight spam is to actually go out and work to get spammers shut down... not just play filtering games on the 90%-and-increasing fraction of mail traffic that's spam.
It's not pop-up blockers that killed X10, it was people going out and getting folks selling ad space to X10 to quit doing it, by hitting THEM in THEIR pocketbooks. And that's what has to be done with Vibrant.
This was either a clueless person at Google with too much power or something more political.
Your first guess was correct.
If there's a million "open source" licenses (which there are), it can become virtually impossible for code to move between projects with different licensing.
Yes, but here we have the GPL, LGPL, MPL, Apache, Artistic, MIT, and BSD as perhaps the most successful licenses to date. If you want to ban the other 999993, let's talk. Any of the preceding, you're off your map-reducing rocker.
(yes, I realize I forgot your favorite really popular license)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)