Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Treating "Windows-Only" As Open Source
mjasay writes "The Register is reporting that Microsoft is hosting Windows-only projects on its 'open source project hosting site,' CodePlex. Miguel de Icaza caught and criticized Microsoft for doing this with its Microsoft Extensibility Framework (MEF), licensing it under the Microsoft Limited Permissive License (Ms-LPL), which restricts use of the code to Windows. Microsoft has changed the license for MEF to an OSI-approved license, the Microsoft Public License, but it continues to host a range of other projects under the Ms-LPL. If CodePlex wasn't an 'open source project hosting site,' this wouldn't be a problem. But when Microsoft invokes the 'open source' label, it has a duty to live up to associated expectations and ensure that the code it releases on CodePlex is actually open source. If it doesn't want to do this — if it doesn't want to abide by this most basic principle of open source — then call CodePlex something else and we'll all move on."
This is most likely a tactic to try to get people to associate "open source" with Microsoft and not Linux.
The more confused PHBs become, the easier it is to continue selling Windows licenses.
Honestly, I don't see anything new here. This is just yet another example of Microsoft attempting to muddy the waters. It's classical embrace and extend.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I hear there are no versions of the Linux kernel that run under windows.
"...invokes the 'open source' label"
Who owns this label?
"His name was James Damore."
I suppose it depends upon how "open" you think should be defined? For example if a company as part of purchase gives you the source code but says that you can't distribute it. Is that "open"?
Microsoft doesn't really understand the idea of 'open source'... It seems to believe that if the source is out in the open in a certain manner, so to speak, it's 'open source', and it believes there could be restrictions placed on top of it despite what the name implies.
Maybe they're thinking along the lines of the 'open door policy' that some managers use as a means of 'communication with employees'. I mean, it's 'open', after all... right? He might throw a chair at you, but you're welcome to step in?
Serving time in Aristotelean prison for violating laws of physics
Says who? I don't recall anybody owning the phrase "open source" or "free software".
Even if somebody did, I'd think that's as just asinine as other engineered bogus trademark claims.
Sorry about this, but simply being a group of semi-communist nerds ("CopyLeft") does not give you the right to rewrite the dictionary and enforce this upon others.
The way you as a narrow special interest group define 'Free' as in 'Free Software' does not rhyme with how the majority of the world's population define the word 'Free' or the connotations they draw from it. To therefore allow a special interest group to hijack standard terminology and aggressively retribute against people who defy their hold on and special definition of that terminology is not something we should, for the sake of language standards if not anything else.
This is the type of complaint that makes open source evangelism appear pointless.
What exactly is open source software? Do I really need to be able to compile this on my TI99/4A? Why should I care if this software is initially only available on Windows?
I don't think it is fair that you got first post, I wish I had got first post, my first post was going to be quite good. Someone (perhaps the shashdot editors should fix this). Maybe in retrospect I should have realised that an Anonymous Coward by nature would try to get first post, but I didn't, my hope was that the Anonymous Coward would change his behaviour this time so that everyone would get to read my post - but I guess the Anonymous Coward can't be trusted to do the right thing after all. Its a shame though. I really hope that from this chastisement Anonymous Coward will get message and change his spots. Irrelevant first posts are selfish and spoil things for everyone.
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
It is not a matter of ownership. Words have a particular meaning and this is a case of MS trying to throw its weight around to change the popular understanding of the meaning of "Open Source" to something that is favorable for them. Last time I checked, "Open Source" does NOT mean "something that is only legal to use on Windows".
OSI?
...from MS that a website dedicated to it is warranted and worth linking to from everywhere.
Or Linux-only, or Mac-only, or Plan9-only. The point is that if someone wants to modify the code so it runs on an Atari 800, they're legally free to do so. Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open.
I hear there are no versions of the Linux kernel that run under windows.
From http://www.colinux.org/ Cooperative Linux is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. More generally, Cooperative Linux (short-named coLinux) is a port of the Linux kernel that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on Windows 2000/XP...
A case could be made that it's a trademark of the opensource initiative, and/or software in the public interest...
That Microsoft got their Microsoft Public License accepted by the OSI as an open-source license certainly indicates they know who defined the term... Then they go back and misuse it...
That's ALL that's needed to be open.
The criticism that MS' code isn't open source is a lie.
If someone can take the code, port it to other platforms, and distribute it, then it's still open source. They can refuse to accept patches porting it to other platforms, and it's still open source. Their hosting provider can even deny them free hosting if they accept patches for supporting other operating systems.
Just because you host open source, doesn't mean you can't add extra constraints. Google Code limits the licenses you can use, and used to not allow the Mozilla Public License.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's about false advertising. Microsoft is making a claim that they aren't living up to.
Nobody owns the phrase "CEO of a multinational corporation" but if I put it on my resume then I'll have hell to pay when trying to find a job.
"Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open."
Licenses by definition aren't open and they most certainly serve an end. All the OSI approved licenses restrict what I can do in one way or the other. Otherwise everything would be public domain which is as free as this world can offer.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Open source does not mean open platform, case closed.
MS is such an insignificant player in OSS and is hardly associated with it as it is... I really wonder what it expects to gain from this. Nobody looks at MS when they think of Open Source.
About CodePlex CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. Start a new project, join an existing one, or download software created by the community. More About CodePlex... Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community.
In other words, developers can -gasp- choose the license they want. And they do, including MS. Also, it has nothing to do with the OSI since MS explicitly mentions it's 'open source' and not 'Open Source'(which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?). open source != free(as in freedom) software.
This space for rent.
First there was "Embrace"
Now there is "Extend"
Next up...
Unfortunately for MS, the FOSS genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle, and muddying the waters like this only serves to delay the inevitable - FOSS is cheaper and better than closed in a commodity market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
does rubyforge, for example, host any non-ruby projects?
Except that the term was around long before the OSI "defined" it.
People need to learn to distinguish between "open source" and "Open Source". Anything that comes with source code is "open source". Anything that meets the OSI definition is "Open Source".
It used to be registered as a service mark of the Open Source Initiative.
However, I believe the trademark registration was allowed to lapse in 1999. It is a shame, because this is the type of confusion that the trademark and trademark law should have prevented.
They do seem to be quite touchy about the use of the phrase Open Source (in caps).
They really did pick a bad name though, because Open doesn't imply all the things they want it to mean.
some licenses let you sell your product some licenses don't. so what difference does it make if some licenses want to support a specific goal, like in this case, more open source software for Microsoft products
get over it
From the article:
Honestly, please read more than a paragraph or two of the article before submitting it to Slashdot. You can submit any code under any licence you like to CodePlex, and indeed encourages you to do so. Where's the problem here, exactly? That "open source" means different things to Microsoft than it does to some other people? That term means many things to many people, from the idea of being able to view the source of software but do little else with it, to the BSD/public domain-ish idea of all code being available for modification under virtually any terms. That's all this is. Nothing to see here, move along.
I write bullshit
Point understood, you have an example of a ruby-only site.
However, do projects on that site have a license explicitly forbidding you from re-implementing them in python or perl or C? I suspect no, that they would allow that even if they choose not to explicitly aid it.
In this case, MS's site is hosting code that not only is Windows specific, but forbids potential developers from even porting it to other operating systems. The former is hard to argue, the latter bit I understand raising some ire amongst Free software advocates.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
But (if I am understanding the comments correctly), the license forbids you from porting to code to another platform. A real open source license wouldn't do that.
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yea but can you really trademark such a term at this point? The use of the phrase open source is so widespread now i think they've lost control of whatever power they had over its use, unless they'd like to argue over the use of capitalization Open Source vs open source.
The problem isn't that the code is built solely for Windows...there are lots of projects that are considered open source that are built for a single operating system. The issue is that the license expressly forbids developers to port the code to any other OS.
Call it what you will, but that ain't open source.
Ride the skies
They weren't bastardizing the concept. They were working with the community to provide a definition big companies like IBM, Sun, or Microsoft, and lawyers could understand.
And in the past they even registered "open source" as a service mark for protection of the thriving community against dilution by people who wanted to twist the concept of open source.
To protect against companies who want to just make the source visible without actually opening it for others to use or change without undue restrictions protective corporate lawyers would normally demand upon (things like written approval).
From http://www.opensource.org
Emphasis mine.
Publishing the code, and saying, "You may do this, only, and no more", is certainly within their rights, but it ain't open.
I find that statement to be slightly ironic, since it's exactly how the GPL works, and most people consider that open.
'Course, now I'm the one playing word games, since the GPL is arguably restricting what you can do to keep openness, but still, the point is that almost all open source licenses place some form of restriction on what you can do with the code.
The difference between truly open and closed depend on what those restrictions are.
"Open source" is an ambiguous term that is almost as bad as "Intellectual Property". The objection here is that the license forbids you from doing anything with the source unless you use Windows to do it. So it's "open source" only if you already use Windows and don't ever plan to use anything else.
I can see why M$ would like that license, and it's almost comically self serving, but I have to agree that it still fits the catchall "open source" designation. It certainly isn't "Free as in Freedom" software, however.
What is Codeplex really about? It's a cheap form of recruiting developers to keep supporting the Windows platform by building better programs... as long as Microsoft gets a profit from it.
This is why using the GPLv3 is forbidden in Codeplex.
A real open source license wouldn't do that
That's your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open. People seem to be intent on tacking on a whole load of 'moral' obligations that someone has to follow to qualify to use 'open source', when nothing could be further from the truth.
Definitely a very liberal sprinkling of "Open Source is our phrase, you can't use it" going around the comments on this article.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Get your timeline right. "Open source" became common *after* and *because* OSI defined it in 1998.
It's the rights that are important. You're missing that entirely.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The protection of phrases is intended to protect from artificial distortion of the marketplace and also serves as consumer protection. However, OSI does not have a registered trademark on this phrase (probably because it is too generic).
THIS!
But (if I am understanding the comments correctly), the license forbids you from porting to code to another platform. A real open source license wouldn't do that.
Then you understand wrong and so do the tossers making the comments because the GPL allows restrictions on open source. Or are you saying the GPL isn't an open source licence?
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Why don't they trademark it? They think they own it? Let them!
..but just because a program is open source does not mean it needs to be portable. Most open source projects are, but it's not a definitional requirement. I don't like the license scheme or the way MS handles this, but as long as the source code is given, it's technically "open source"
Miguel de Icaza caught and criticized Microsoft for doing this
Hehe. Being a m$whore is not all rosy experience, Miguel. And many have told you before.
Also to muddle the meaning of "open source" to the point where people start to believe it means what Microsoft says it means.
By your definition, the latest feature films are "open" as well. After all, you can look at them. You can't copy them, distribute them, compile them, or anything else.
C'mon, we both know you're cleverer than this. We're talking about the definition of 'open source', not open in general and certainly not Software Freedom or copyright of any kind, which is what the article would like us to get incensed about.
I respect you and your work Bruce, but I'm going to have to disagree with you completely here - I'm not missing a damn thing, and I believe you're getting yourself lost in a moral definition of a very simple English phrase - the source is open and it therefore is 'open source'. One of the plus points of open source as I'm led to understand is that others can review the code to increase trust in that code, many eyes and all that. This is possible with the license as given and as such provides at the benefits that open code can provide. I agree that it doesn't follow the FSF-approved definitions of Free Software or "software libre" but that's not what this is about in the slightest.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Perhaps this is an attempt to trick developers not paying close attention into download some Ms-LPL source and include it in their project. Later, when some code snippets show up ported to another platform, Microsoft can cry foul.
Many years ago, our legal department advised us _not_ to touch Microsoft tools, products, or platforms. Or some tangled web of licensing restrictions could come back to bite us.
Have gnu, will travel.
There was no "open source", capitals or not, regarding software until the Open Source Definition. If you look through past material, you can only find a few uses of the words together regarding software at all, with no consistent meaning.
There's also no term that I'm aware of for "water that is wet", simply because "water that isn't wet" hasn't really been invented yet. Maybe someone will invent the term "wet water" once we figure out how to make "dry water", and we can all credit them with the existence of wetness...
And you're surprised by this...why?
In the Microsoft-centric worldview there are no other operating systems. Yeah, shove OS-X or Linux in their faces and they'll ruefully admit to the obvious truth and promise corrections as soon as they get approval and work their way through the system.
Expect Microsoft to try this, get caught, hang their heads, and try a few more times until Version 3 mostly gets it right.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yes, word game it is.
If the word empty means the lack of something, that lack of something by itself is something, so emptiness is a something. So when one can say a full glass of water is empty, because it is empty of air!
Freedom means restricting/compromising certain rights so that people can live freely. By the same definition, totalitarian is freedom, because the dictator is free to do whatever he/she wants.
Open source means restricting the ability to abuse copyright to make software closed. Thus, all license with restrictions are open sourced because they are also restricting something... Hmm... actually, that makes no sense.
This may not be a popular view here but it seems to me that the phrase "open source" has taken on a highly generic meaning within the tech community. Some feel that specific criteria must be met to label something as open source while others throw the term around for anything where the source code is "available". Sure - it might be wrong. But much like the improper use of kleenex and coke, open source may fall in the same boat.
Timothy, you can do better than this. Some of the qualities of molecules, such as surface tension and the polarity of atomic dipoles, govern the ability of water to wet various materials. Chemicals, for example detergents, have been developed to modulate the wetting ability of water. And there are few more enthusiasticaly trademarked products than detergents.
Bruce Perens.
Isn't GPL stuff 'free' rather than 'open'? Sure, most people consider that something else but that's why we should refer to Linux as GNU/Linux.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
I thought those only made it more wet?
And for it to be made into a Cross Platform code tree, the source would have to be completely open which is not how Microsoft is publishing this stuff. Just because the code is (supposedly) available , doesn't make it open . There's a big difference there.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Public source means the source code is publicly available. Open source means that you can take that source and do whatever you want with it.
A woman comes home one day in the dead of winter, and there's a snake on her front porch. She jumps, startled, but then the snake speaks. "Please help me, I am freezing to death," says the snake. "But you're a snake, you'll bit me," says the woman. "No no, please, I promise, I am dying - if you take me inside and let me warm myself by the fire I will live, and I will owe you my life. I would never bite you," replies the snake. So the woman lets the snake in, the snake warms itself by the fire, then slithers over and bites the woman. "You've poisoned me! Why did you do that?!? I saved your life!" screams the woman. "Yeah, but I'm a snake," replies the snake.
The strange thing here is not Microsoft failing to be altruistic. It is Miguel's stunning credulity.
You are a hero of Open Source, Miguel, and a heckuva project leader. I have a lot of respect for you. But you have a lot to learn about reading people.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Windows is a very simple phrase. Trademarked.
Apple? TM
"Start me up"? That was restricted with Win95.
etc.
And Open Source MEANS something. The use of words to mislead a customer is why trademarks were invented.
If you bought a Sony product and found out it was a Latvian company called Sony making your LCD TV, that would be wrong. Not because they didn't sell you a Sony TV but that you thought the Sony was a particular company.
Same here.
Open Source defined by OSI in computer markets.
Water that isn't wet is called really cold ice.
Go here and search for "wet". It's already trademarked :-) . There are also a very large number of trademarks containing or related to "wet".
Bruce Perens.
And Lindows is nothing like Windows.
MS still hounded them from one court to another until they got the agreement that Lindows were misusing MS's trade mark.
So the OSI could do exactly the same.
I think damages of the order of $100M is in order...
Water that isn't wet is called really cold ice.
Hmm... looks like there are also kinds of ice that don't float. Weird.
So the pattern continues...
The people who buy in to this are the victims, no one else.
Is the primary purpose of movies to be compiled into an executable program? I think your analogy is broken.
Usually comparisons with cars go down much better. New here?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
One of the plus points of open source as I'm led to understand is that others can review the code to increase trust in that code, many eyes and all that.
That's one of the many pluses, and the problem is that most other pluses disappear at once at the moment you change the licensing to something like "you can look at this but you can't do X" for various values of X.
Hmm. I wonder if it would be possible for FSF to get a trademark on "Open Source"? That might put an end to the word games...
This is, unfortunately, a prelude or realization that Microsoft can embrace/extend/extinguish the _meaning of the phrase_ "open source" just as well as it can anything else.
Sadly, the exact same thing happened to all the "organic farmers". Big companies started slapping "organic" on all their products because it would sell, irrespective of any meaning behind the words.
The only defense would have been to trademark "organic" / "open source" and have it be held by some public committee, but it's too late now.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
the concept of 'open source'
just like what they did to 'computer'
do u know that 'computer' was once a job title which employs mathematicians?
'computer' was once human
I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but then I saw your name pop up, and figured it'd be the best place to ask ;) What about trademarking the term "Open Source"? Combined with a liberal license (ie, free usage to anyone who releases software under a recognized Open Source license), wouldn't that put an end to the word games?
just because a product is only available on windows, doesnt make it open source?
portfolio
1) create new "open source" license restricted to use on windows only
2) release software under this license
3) wait for some piece of the code to show up in software on some other OS.
4) sue for copyright violation
5) PROFIT!!
For bonus points:
?) optionally include other open source licensed code in the software
?) sue the author of the other open source code for violating the MS license by continuing to use code that has been re-released under the MS "open source" license.
?) PROFIT!!!
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
It is against the FSF definition of free software:
(emphasis mine)
It is obviously also against the spirit of the GPL, although the letter of the GPL does not require portability. The FAQ does contain the obvious warning against writing software which runs only (is "trapped") on a particular proprietary system.
you had me at #!
So not any license you want.
Please try again.
There is literally nothing to see here.
A software project being open source does not automatically mean that software is free, either as beer or as speech.
Either you people have forgotten that, or you are just changing the meanings of your words.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
We need more than you think for something to be open even by your over-restrictive definition of "open". Consider that the report on the security of Sequoia voting machines has been supressed by the court. In that case, the software was trade secret and all rights reserved. But what if it had been source code that was disclosed but still "all rights reserved"? Since that prohibits compilation and use, it would be difficult for security testers to legally do their work at all. Since it prevents derivative works and redistribution, we'd be unable to include code snippets in any report. We would be legally unable to modify the software for the purpose of testing bug fixes. And we'd be unable to distribute fixes.
The rights are a lot more important than you think. Even to have a kind of code that is disclosed mainly for the purpose of increasing trust, we'd have to design a license to convey significant rights, if the examiners were not to be placed at legal risk.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The GPL does not put restrictions on porting or portability (I just went to re-read it).
But what MS is doing is obviously against the spirit of what free and open source software stands for (surprise, surprise).
To be free as software users and developers, we need Windows out of the ecosystem, or at most, an optional part of it. Microsoft's agenda is explicitly, self-evidently to make Windows a mandatory part of the computing experience.
you had me at #!
where I worked on making movies they were compiled.
Bruce Perens.
Isn't this pretty much why RMS argues against using the phrase "open source"?
IIRC, his point was basically that "free software" allows you to study, modify, and use the software. Open source, on the other hand, means just that; the source is there for you to look at, but different licenses have different restrictions on the use and modification of the code.
In RMS's own words: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
OSI's definition of Open Source: http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Just consider: Microsoft can obtain all Windows source code, Microsoft is licensed to modify Windows source code, and Microsoft is empowered to impose any condition it likes on subsequent users (if any) of the Windows source code. So from Microsoft's point of view, Open Source is as good a moniker for Windows-only software as any. It's just a question of hacking the definition of "Open Source" a bit.
Of course you always have intolerant extremists who feel that only their own views on Open Source should be considered, but Microsoft makes a pretty good case for their own definition of Open Source.
So why not open the "Open Source" trademark so that anyone can use it? Everyone can see that it's hypocritical to demand free software and then insist on closed trademarks. There clearly is a demand for opening the Open Source trademark!
You're right, his example doesn't (directly) address open source... of course it wasn't supposed to. The point is that by your definition those films would qualify as "open" ("open films" if you will). You see, there's this thing called "analogy" an in this case it's been used to illustrate the idiocy of your point.
And this has nothing to do with morals, so don't try make it something it's not. Words (or terms) do not mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. Their meaning must be implicitly shared between those using it, and your definition of "open" just doesn't make the cut. It's also kind of funny (or lame) to imply that "the others" are the ones trying to subvert the meaning of "a very simple English phrase", when your characterization of open source should be described as "visible source".
"the source is open and it therefore is 'open source'
I don't think you understand how arguing works. You can't take your thesis and use it as a premise to prove it. "a -> a" might be true, but that doesn't prove "a" to be true. You're right however in that the license allows some of the benefits of open source and nobody is denying that. It just happens to fail some of the other prerequisites to call it "open source" so, just as you wouldn't call a dog a feline because it has 4 legs and a tail, you shouldn't call MS-LPL open source (*).
(*) Just to be clear (as you seem to have troubles with analogies) I'm not calling MS-LPL a cat.
My point was really that "open source" already conveys something far more simple than what you want people to read into it, and it's the simple definition that Microsoft are very obviously meeting.
Even with your more complex definition for the purposes of the OSI, the MS-LPL only fails on one count of 10, which is regarding being technology-neutral. We could further argue on how important to the issue that is but I think we'd be digressing even further from what I'm trying to say.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
...as long as it's black. There are a few licenses that you can't have on Codeplex (like GPLv3, for instance, although GPLv2 is allowed).
Also:
'Open Source'(which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?)
It's not trademarked, but they did define it.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
Politicians and other marketing people have been trying to create associations between "happy words" and their products for aeons. "Patriot Act" invokes some fucked-up association between "Patriot" and "good" (why? As someone else here is fond of pointing out, 'patriot' is almost a synonym for 'racist'). At least this suggests that "Open Source" is now a "happy word"!
Isn't that why trademarks were invented? It would not be unreasonable to trademark "Open Source" and then have a legal team (of volunteers, obviously) going around making trouble for Microsoft etc. Payment in prestige, as usual. However, I believe that Bruce Perens already tried this on behalf of the OSI, and for some reason or other it didn't work out.
Remember William Della Croce Jr? You'd better never forget that valuable lesson.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Exactly.
This is most likely a first post on Slashdot.
The only obvious solution is to port Ms-LPL licensed source code to Linux and OS X, then create a new list in the spirit of the Sue Me First list from a while back, then just see how Microsoft responds. As trollish as this post sounds, I really do think it would be an interesting experiment.
....Anyone...? No one. =(
Who wants to volunteer to port all the StdAfx.h/.cpp files? Anyone?
Your ad here.
My point was that the analogy wasn't a very good one because people put wildly different expectations on software and movies, but thank you for the copious amount of insults and the assumption that I didn't know what I was talking about. Incidentally, I did enjoy your amusing lecture on how words "do not mean whatever anyone wants them to mean" before you moved on to defining various words for me. It's almost as if you were trying to say "open doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it means what I want it to mean".
What is it with people today - seems like a Slashdot competition to be World's Most Arrogant Jackass.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism.
Bruce
Unlike the totalitarianism of redefining the meaning of common words like 'free' and 'open' and then insisting everyone else use your definition.
Open source means the source is publically available. Like Paint.net.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.
Proof? Citation Needed?
Me being sick of people spreading utter bullshit like this and assuming everybody reading Slashdot is so stupid that they'll bend over and take it?
Comment of the year
Since it prevents derivative works and redistribution, we'd be unable to include code snippets in any report. We would be legally unable to modify the software for the purpose of testing bug fixes.
I hope that you actually understand copyright better than you appear to with this statement.
If you make the source code of "open source" software available, it is no different from publishing it as a book. In the case of a book, you get the "source code" by obtaining a copy the book (either by purchasing, borrowing, etc.). How you obtain the source to the software is unimportant as long as you obtained the copy legally, and even that might be a gray area.
After that, normal copyright law—including fair use—applies. So, you most certainly can publish code snippets in a report, because a report would be considered a review or criticism. It's important to understand that "licenses" on freely available source code can't remove rights that are available for normal copyright...they can only increase the end user rights. Most often, this increase is giving someone who does not hold the copyright a license for distribution, sometimes with some restrictions on that distribution.
Although some of this might not apply if obtaining the source required signing some sort of restrictive personalized contract (as opposed to being able to download it anonymously), something quite literally freely available to anyone would certainly allow normal fair use, regardless of any "license" to the contrary. This would include re-compiling to test bug fixes.
Despite any "license", copyright allows people to do pretty much anything with a copyrighted work for their own personal use. Now, whether you could publish your "derivative work" that is the bug fix...that's another story. But, you almost certainly could publish just the fix as "criticism" as part of fair use. You certainly might get sued for this, but then you might get sued for chewing gum and walking at the same time.
As if that one count of 10 wasn't important.
At one point or another, my main coding platform was an Apple II, Commodore Vic-20, Commodore 64, PDP-11, VAX, Sun, SGI, PC Clone, and I've had a number of secondary coding platforms, including CHAP (something Pixar made), 6809, PIC, AVR, and so on. And all of the various operating systems for those things.
Any code that I have been given with platform restrictions, during that entire time, for various employers, is dead code today. No users, probably can't even be built if someone could find it, and I can't use it either.
In contrast, essentially all of the work I've done under an Open Source license is still living and has a vibrant user community.
You really need to think about this rights thing more.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
That's your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open.
That doesn't define anything. You just restated the words in a different order.
Open Source doesn't require that the source be ported to alternate systems, but it absolutely does require the legal right to do so. That's a side-effect of "the source is open". If you disallow the right to port, the source isn't open.
Definitely a very liberal sprinkling of "Open Source is our phrase, you can't use it" going around the comments on this article.
Open Source is our phrase. Anyone can use it, but if they use it wrong, it's definitely reasonable that we should step up and point this out. Which is exactly what you said we are doing. Why do you state it like it's a wrong thing to do?
There is no affirmative fair use right in copyright law. Go look for it in the copyright title, it's not there. Fair use is a defense in copyright case law. And it has been substantially eroded, and continues to be. If we're talking about books, a number of software manuals place substantial restrictions on the use of the information in their licenses. For example, the Java manuals from Sun restrict use of the knowledge to create an incompatible implementation. There is some dispute regarding whether these things can be enforced, but not enough.
Bruce Perens.
Irrelevant first posts are selfish and spoil things for everyone.
But you think other kinds of irrelevant posts are just fine, huh?
Well, just point me how something that can only be legally used in windows is 'open' in any way.
There's the OSI, and nope you cannot use 'open source' as a hype exploiting advertisement yet not really follow it.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
By your definition, the latest feature films are "open" as well.
Yes, just like I would say that a new restaurant is now open for the public. As opposed to e.g. Scientology's videos and teachings, which are not open for the public but are distributed regardless.
I think Open Source Movement is doing itself a disservice by trying to usurp the definitions of very common words like open and free with esoteric and counterintuitive meanings.
Microsoft *has* to do this in order to be able to show wall st and stockholders that there are an increasing number of projects on it's "Open Source" site. Lack of upward movement would tend to cause (the normally ill-informed) investors to question their commitment to "Open Source". "Blah..." "Hey look, we have an ever increasing number of Open Source projects..." "Blah."
I respect you and your work Bruce, but I'm going to have to disagree with you completely here
Yeah, it's not like he helped define the term or anything.
I'm not missing a damn thing, and I believe you're getting yourself lost in a moral definition of a very simple English phrase - the source is open and it therefore is 'open source'.
Yes, you are. You are missing a lot.
Open Source means the source is:
- Freely Open to Viewing
- Freely Open to Copying
- Freely Open to Modification
- Freely Open to Compiling
- Freely Open to Redistribution
Just because software is freely open to viewing is insufficient to make it open source. Morality has nothing to do with the definition, other than it was borne from a sense of morality. But the term itself is morally neutral. You're thinking of that other guy.
Open source is not just two English words crammed together. It's a term in and of itself. It has a meaning that is widely understood and accepted in the field. It takes a lot of influence to redefine a term so well-ensconced. Not even MS has enough influence to redefine Open Source. They tried (perhaps), but they failed.
What makes you think that you're going to succeed where MS failed?
...So open source != Linux, instead Linux is a subset of open source.
If you need a simplification that's more accurate, consider that it's M$ vs (closed source + open source).
M$ boosters have been working to try to conflate Linux and Open Source. Another goal has been to try to create a false dichotomy of choosing between Linux and M$. The choice is greater. You've got all kinds of Open Source, which Linux (both the kernel and the distros) are a part of. Unfortunately in areas with too much damage from Microsoftianism, the term "Linux" is used to mean any thing that is not M$
However, the name Open Source, with it's 10 criteria, is from the Open Source Initiative. Free Software, as a name, is older, having turned 25. (BTW WTF is up with /. to have missed that? Too many M$ boosters on staff?) Prior to that, it was simply called "software". It was self-evident that you got the source for use and modification and redistribution. Usually accompanied by some text file called README or COPYING giving the details.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
That's your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open. People seem to be intent on tacking on a whole load of 'moral' obligations that someone has to follow to qualify to use 'open source', when nothing could be further from the truth.
Have you RTFA? It doesn't refer to hosting products which for technical reasons can only run on Windows, nobody's bothered porting them to anything else and it may or may not be feasible.
It refers to products having a license agreement which says "Do what you like but you may only use it on Windows".
This is definitely against the spirit of Open Source, even if not the letter.
There are plenty of projects on Sourceforge that use non-OSI licenses. Is Sourceforge no longer able to call it self an "open source" depository?
Besides that, "open source" does NOT equal "OSI approved". I don't know where that idea came from.
No, "open source" is not a phrase that can mean anything you want it to. It has a well-established, specific meaning to the computing community.
It is a free country, and you can use the word improperly if you wish, but you will end up looking like a fool if you do.
Why should anybody be surprised by Microsoft behaving in the same ways it always has? They have pledged to change, but they have not been demonstrating real change. Yet. And they may not... because that promise, and failure to live up to it, are also things they have done before, many times.
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
I'm sorry, but the definition of words keeps changing with use. For example, would you say that Open Source leads to Gay Software?
"The rights are a lot more important than you think."
Then perhaps you and others should use the term 'Free software' or 'Freedom software' more in your vocabulary if you're really all that interested in users' 'rights'.
Oh, boy, like GPL is so open. GPL is open with strings.
As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open.
Good for you. I suppose you think that a hot dog is a canine at a higher than normal temperature too.
Language does not work the way you claim it does.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Then why did the attempt to trademark the term 'Open Source' fail? Because of the so called 'dweebs' and 'corporate totalitarianism'?
This space for rent.
Any sort of public availablity is good, this is just less good than the ideal. I think this is a good balance though for a company, as they have an agenda: increase the power and appeal of the product they sell. They have an ethical obligation to their shareholders to try to make money for them. Some companies have gone too far to open source IMHO. For example Sun, almost every product you could have bought from them is now available in an open source version. Great for the customer; my work uses a lot of Sun infrastructure, but I'm not convinced it is great for the company, as can be demonstrated by their stock performance (which is at its low and has been roughly flat since the .com bubble).
I know I will burn karma for this - Open Source means that the source code is open. The fact that there are many licenses available such as the BSD one, the GNU one the MIT one and others means that there is no one agreed upon definition of what all it must encompass.
Any way point being - let them do what they are as long as they aren't imposing it on you. If they are forcing you to do something against your will - leave it.
blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
"This is definitely against the spirit of Open Source, even if not the letter."
I note that you capitalized "Open Source", which indicates that you are referring to a specific definition of the term (I assume the OSI definition). But the CodePlex site says, "CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site", where "open source" is not capitalized. So they're using the term "open source" colloquially, rather than going by some official definition. Does OSI or slashdot or Bruce Perens or ESR or Miguel de Icaza, or jimicus or whoever else now presume to have the power to restrict the use of the term "open source" even when not capitalized? Who the hell gave any of them that power?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Nor does it work the way that you seem to think it does.
I suppose you think that a hot dog is a canine at a higher than normal temperature too.
I suppose you think that hot dogs have always been called hot dogs - there was no intervening period while the phrase gained acceptance, it was literally just a mental switch-flip and everyone was calling them hotdogs.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
About CodePlex CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. Start a new project, join an existing one, or download software created by the community. More About CodePlex... Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community.
You wrote:
Open Source is our phrase. Anyone can use it, but if they use it wrong, it's definitely reasonable that we should step up and point this out. Which is exactly what you said we are doing. Why do you state it like it's a wrong thing to do?
He was talking about open source. NOT Open Source.
This space for rent.
Not against the sprit of open source, which is what your parent wrote. Now go buy yourself some reading glasses. Maybe we can get a group discount, since lots of posters in this article can't distinguish between open source and Open Source.
This space for rent.
When something is Open Source (note the capitals), it has a very specific meaning that goes beyond "is the source available openly".
Hmm. I wonder if it would be possible for FSF to get a trademark on "Open Source"? That might put an end to the word games...
OSI tried...and were denied, a long time ago because it was too generic. So, you're dead wrong.
This space for rent.
Yea but can you really trademark such a term at this point? The use of the phrase open source is so widespread now i think they've lost control of whatever power they had over its use, unless they'd like to argue over the use of capitalization Open Source vs open source.
OSI already tried and failed a long time ago.
This space for rent.
I think you really need to read what I'm trying to tell you.
I'm not arguing that your definition is better, or worse. I'm not question the heritage of open source or the benefits of releasing under licenses that the OSI approve. I don't know where you could have read that in any of my posts.
I am trying to say that you've defined a very complex definition for open source, whereas the phrase 'open source' conveys a much simpler set of parameters. I'm not saying either is right or wrong. I am telling you that Microsoft is conforming to one and not the other, and the one they're conforming to is the definition that I encounter most often. Nothing more, nothing less.
You've spent a lot of time evanglising about the benefits of open source as you define it when you didn't have to.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
First, I can read 17 USC as well as the next guy, and it's pretty clear:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
That doesn't say, "is a defense against a lawsuit for infringement". That says "is not an infringement of copyright". So, if you are doing any of those things, you are not infringing, and you don't need a "defense".
The gray area is what, exactly, is meant by "fair use". The list of examples given shows what the law intended, but defining it specifically is maybe not as easy. Still, I'm pretty sure that saying "this code sucks because of this buggy line right here" would fall under "criticism". If you word it a little differently, I think "research" would apply.
Second, there really is no need for an affirmative fair use right unless you are distributing copies, as like anything else, if the right isn't granted or limited to a specific group or person, it is reserved for "all the people". For computer software source code, here is the complete list of all "the exclusive rights to do and to authorize" that the copyright holder has:
For everything else, the copyright holder has no special rights.
What this means is that until you distribute something copyrighted by someone else, you are not infringing, and you don't need to worry about a "defense". So, re-compile that code and test it as much as you want...you aren't infringing on copyright. Or, print out thousand copies and store them in your basement if that floats your boat...you may be crazy, but you're not infringing on copyright.
And it has been substantially eroded, and continues to be.
The "erosion" of fair use is primarily because of the back door of "no circumvention" Otherwise, "fair use" has done nothing but increase. Time shifting and device shifting have been upheld by courts as "fair use", and ventures like YouTube have greatly expanded fair use through more lawsuits over the length and completeness of copies.
Open source is not just two English words crammed together.
I can't help but wonder what you think it is - the term 'open source' is absolutely two English words crammed together. Unfortunately for Bruce, they already convey a meaning when you do the cramming, unlike (as someone suggested in another post) hotdogs.
It has a meaning that is widely understood and accepted in the field.
Absolutely, and everywhere I've encountered it, the meaning has been "you can view the source", no more and no less. OSI will have to work long and hard to usurp that default definition.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Incidentally, I did enjoy your amusing lecture on how words "do not mean whatever anyone wants them to mean" before you moved on to defining various words for me. It's almost as if you were trying to say "open doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it means what I want it to mean".
And which exactly are those words or terms that I attempted to define to mean "what I want it to mean". If you're referring to my characterization of code that can be only be looked at "visible source", that was just and attempt to use "a very simple English phrase" to describe it. That is, a literal phrase that everyone can understand without knowing anything about the license before hand. Some people might like it, others may prefer something like "available code". Whatever you choose though, the point remains that it must be unambiguously understood; so I'm not defining it to mean what I want, I'm just describing (part of) it in non confusing terms. "Open source" on the other hand would be ambiguous in plain English, as the word "open" must be interpreted within its context, and I merely pointed that your characterization of "open source" is not widely shared. Notice also how I didn't even define what "open source" means to me and yet you seem to know exactly what I was referring to. That's because you too (despite arguing on the contrary) know what the terms "open source" mean to most people without me needing to define them. And that's what matters.
What is it with people today - seems like a Slashdot competition to be World's Most Arrogant Jackass.
You're right, I sounded excessively arrogant. In my defense I was only trying to counter your own arrogance (as expressed on the first post I responded to).
Paranoia much? They call it open source, not Open Source like you do. Stop getting confused and trying to confuse both the terms.
This space for rent.
As far as I'm concerned, open source means exactly that - the source is open.
So, if the only requirement of open source is that I can read the source, and Microsoft allows me to read the Windows source if I sign a NDA, does that make Windows Open Source?
Or this might be a little more valid. Microsoft offers to show Windows Kernel code under various Shared Source programs. Their Enterprise Source Licensing Program allows you to see it. However, that is all you can do with it. Is Microsoft Windows an Open Source Operating System?
I think you are confusing open with viewable.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
If it's presented as open source then it can and will be used as open source defines it... wether it is on Amiga OS or Linux.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
The Raven
Although I don't agree with the parent post to which you responded, it's always worried me that a lot of organizations and projects use "open source" to mean merely "visible and reusable source", while the project itself is entirely closed.
There's a big difference between a "community project" and a closed project that merely "throws the source over the wall", yet this distinction doesn't appear in the open source definition, nor indeed in the free software definition.
There's something missing in our labels in this area, something very important but which hasn't yet been captured in a name.
Huh?
Perhaps, but personally I think it's much more likely to simply be a case of a Microsoft manager or committee who are either ignorant or don't really care too much about free software philosophies, and simply think of OSS in the simplistic terms of having the source code being viewable. (That's what it sounds like from the name, after all.)
If you're in the mindset of wanting to keep control of code, but also think it's beneficial to show people the code, it's easier just to throw it onto Microsoft's existing OSS hosting platform and call it Open Source than it is to invent yet another whole new distribution framework.
I don't think it's likely there's any direct malice here. All this says to me is that Microsoft (including the Codeplex people) don't really care about upholding the traditional OSS philosophy as much as they care about getting attention by making source code available... but we already knew that.
As far as I can tell, whether you fail 1 count of 10 or 6 counts of 10, it is still invalid.
If you run a stop sign, drive over the speed limit and have a tail light out, the cops will pull you over. If you just run a stop sign, they will still pull you over. One may be technically worse, but they are still both wrong.
Why the fuck is everyone, and especially you getting fucking confused and trying to confuse everyone over the term 'open source' and 'Open Source'? Can you see he DID NOT capitalize it but you did in your post?
Capitalization does not a new term make.
Or is an MP3 different from an mp3? Try building your own car and selling it as a ford taurus. Write a letter addressed to madison, wi. Start a magazine called wIrEd.
Open Source, open source, opensource, open-source, Open source, etc., all refer to the same thing.
Open source is not just two English words crammed together.
I can't help but wonder what you think it is - the term 'open source' is absolutely two English words crammed together.
The word 'just' is key here. 'Just' means 'only, and nothing more'. As in, it's just a cigar (and not a metaphor for ...). If it is a metaphor for (???), then it's not 'just a cigar', even though it's still "absolutely a cigar".
Unfortunately for Bruce, they already convey a meaning when you do the cramming, unlike (as someone suggested in another post) hotdogs.
It has a meaning that is widely understood and accepted in the field.
Absolutely, and everywhere I've encountered it, the meaning has been "you can view the source", no more and no less. OSI will have to work long and hard to usurp that default definition.
No, you are wrong. It's not called "visible source", it's called "open source".
And, let's just imagine the term was widely used for software before the '97-'98 timeframe that led to the current open source phenomenon. Even is such a case, OSI has most definitely "usurped that default definition". Just google for "open source" and tell me how many references there are, with regards to software, about just being able to view the source, and how many refer to the general GNU or BSD style of view, modify, copy, etc.
Microsoft can't change the definition. Humpty Dumpty can't change the definition. You definitely can't change the definition. You can use it wrongly, as can MS, but pretending that you can decide, against everyone else, what a term means, is a fault that lies with you, not everyone else.
I think I've found a loophole:
(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
As far as I can tell, this means that any software you run, must run on "a Microsoft Windows operating system product." They did not however say "only", which means if you can write a program who's code will run on both windows and *nix/mac/etc then I don't see how this would cause any problems, as long as it runs on windows. They only problem I can see is that you probably won't be able to make a "windows" version and a "*nix" version, you would have to make the same version run under windows and another OS.
Example download list:
I can see how this would be a great inconvenience, but if you have the program auto-detect your platform, then run the appropriate function, sub program, etc, you should be able to do so.
Note: I am in no way condoning what Microsoft has done, I'm simply exposing a loop-hole that may allow us to fight back.
This is interesting. How would we classify the earlier IBM OS source, MVS, VM, etc , they were "open"? They are now used for example on x86 systems. I changed and tested a lot in 70's and 80's - found a couple of bugs. Of course you were on your own if made some changes which didn't get implemented to original. BUT you couldn't sell it, just nothing preventing showing the changes to someone and they adapting the same changes - we did that a lot even between competing companies / corporations.
It was nice as long as it lasted, many ways as good as GPL, BSD, etc (created a lot "synergy") and in some ways even better, better documented, heh!
No, you are wrong.
You can use it wrongly, as can MS, but pretending that you can decide, against everyone else, what a term means, is a fault that lies with you, not everyone else.
Hypocrisy, thy name is node 3. I've told you that the prevailing attitude among friends and coworkers (and we do deal with this stuff a lot in my job) is that open source means the source is available. In your own words, it is not for you to tell me I am wrong.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I wish I hadn't written that line, because it did exactly what I was worried it would do - which was distract from my main point.
I understand that it fails on those guidelines, but that's all they are. They're not laws, they're not immutable, and I definitely don't have to agree with them.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
It's ironic that they go "you can only use this phrase as we tell you to use it". They can pretend they created the phrase and it's the only use but the use of open can be considered the same as with an open book. You open a book to have a look at the contents. You open source code to have a look at the contents.
DISCLAIMER: I liberated myself of M$ years ago. My machine tri-boots Linux, OpenBSD and OS X.
The problem with this term is that the Free (note the capitalization) software people think that Open-source means the [L]GPL or compatible license. On the other side, there are those that acknowledge that the [L]GPL is excessively restrictive i.e. I MUST publish my code under the [L]GPL as well (L depending on linkage). So, in the end, when we put these side-by-side, they are pretty much as restrictive as each other, just in different ways. Also, we note that this disagreement is due to the fuzzy term "open-source."
Point of fact, the only truly agreed on /parts/ of the definition are that people can see the code and play with it. Unfortunately, this battle ground is rot with opinions on the restrictions thereof and with many (most?) not respecting the opinions of others.
But, in the end, when it comes down to this M$ only site, who really cares? Because, when it comes down to it, if someone is going to write code that is explicitly linked to M$ libs/etc how portable will it really be? So, how useful will it be to others on other OS's anyway?
So, I say this: If they want there own sand box, let them have it. Because, the [L]GPL people have there's as well. And if we are going to treat everyone equally, then we can't complain when others create there own playhouses.
Grow up people. And stop trying to shove your opinions down others throats.
If what you are saying is true - that by "opening" the source qualifies for "Open Source", why suddenly stop using "Shared Source" and switch to "Open Source"? By your claim that the use of "Open Source" was to imply that source is open for the rest of us to see: didn't "Shared Source" imply the same thing - that the source is shared? What was the need to switch to the term "Open Source" if not to pollute the previously established and accepted meaning of the term "Open Source"?
"OpenXML", "Open Source" (MS Style), etc distinctly reeks of trying to embrace (to ultimately extinguish) the "Open" in "Open Source".
For people that created "Open Source" to 'clarify' "Free Software" - "Open" doesn't seem all that much clearer than "Free", now does it?
Kind of funny- the same people now have never, ever, ever complained about people making OSS for Lunix only... and never making Windows versions.
Seems their evangelism of multi-platform only goes in one direction.
come on, are people really surprised that Microsoft is not only taking MS .Net to the world of Windows-only but also making sure anyone who uses their sites/services are Windows-only partners too?
Get real folks. With out a monopoly hold on the pre-load computer market, Microsoft would be dead meat. They know they need to make sure their customers do not have a choice to try another OS because they will not put their software on another OS. Remember, without Windows they are dead meat. Outside of one package, MS Office for Mac, they have never put their software on another OS with the intention of making a business profit from it. They put Internet Explorer on Solaris to kill off all the Win32-UNIX licensees and keep anti-trust judges from nailing them for it. When Palm had 80% marketshare and WinCE was less than 5% IBM, Sybase, and other dbase vendors released lite versions for the PalmOS. Microsoft released MS Access-lite for WindowsCE.
Miguel is an idiot for kissing Microsoft's ass every time they expose it to him. MS .Net was created to stop Java from taking Microsoft developers over to a cross platform API and software stack plain and simple. Anything "open" about it is a trick/game/hoax/etc because they own the spec.
Microsoft's business is to own/control all software development and make sure it is all done on Windows. This is a fact. Everything they do must first protect the Windows marketshare. This is reality. Open source is a threat to Microsoft when it runs on anything other than or along with Windows. Another fact. So cry all you want Miguel, you're an idiot for following Microsoft and playing the Pied Piper to those too naive to understand. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Open source means the source is publically available.
and the Windows source code itself, if you sign all the legal NDAs in their 'shared source' program (and they let you, of course). So I guess you think Windows is an Open source program?
Nice. You've just destroyed the common-usage of the term. You'll be telling us 'gay' means happy and has no homosexual meaning next?
Words change their meaning over time and with majority usage. "Open source" nowadays refers to a particular system of free and shareable code. That's just the way its gone, you can try and change it, but the majority of people have to agree and use it in your terms for it to actually change like you want.
FYI: Open in open source is synonym of unrestricted. the capitalization is not important. It may not be even public.
It's like stating that open government, means unrestricted government, not to public(visible) government
Hypocrisy, thy name is node 3. I've told you that the prevailing attitude among friends and coworkers (and we do deal with this stuff a lot in my job) is that open source means the source is available.
This isn't your friends and coworkers. This is the Internet. If your small cadre of acquaintances are equally wrong, that doesn't make them somehow right in the broader context.
Open any random google search for open source, open any trade magazine, open any open source program's license. What you will find is that it's more than just the source is viewable.
That the source is viewable is just the most obvious aspect of open source, but that's not the end of it. If that's all you think is required, you have an incomplete understanding of the term. Your ignorance, however, has no bearing on the definition of the term.
In your own words, it is not for you to tell me I am wrong.
Not quite. You seem to have an extreme difficulty with language. It's not for me to define the term. It's definitely for me (if I want to) to tell you that your usage of the term is wrong. I'm not arbitrarily redefining a term to fit what my small sphere of acquaintances thinks it means, I'm looking to the source of the term, to the common usage of the term, and bringing that knowledge to you, since you so truculently wish to promote your ignorance to the rest of us.
It's quite clear you are going to hold on to the death your limited world view. Have it your way, Humpty. Be wrong. Take comfort in your small little corner of the world. Just don't think that you're going to be able to find much agreement with the broader tech world. Get used to being caught up in arguments, not about useful questions, but about the definition of the words you use. Be prepared to waste your talents (if you have any) on foolish endeavors, because until you open your mind to the way things are, and not just as they look ten feet in front of you, you're going to encounter frustration every time you venture from that wall you are sitting on.
Isn't it easier to simply accept the term as it is and move on? What do you possibly gain by redefining a term? The licenses that are open source will still be the same, whether they are called open source, or free software, or 'modify, copy, distribute as you please' software. And software for which the source is available for view, but not open such that it can be freely modified and redistributed will still be the same, closed software, whether you want to call it open source or not. So what's the point for you? The point for MS is clear, they get to pretend their software is open, when it isn't. If they can destroy a term, they can attempt to destroy a movement. But for you? Are you that base? Is that your goal as well?
In that same vein, I'm going to leave it at that. No point in wasting my time and talents arguing with a tool. Those that read this can make up their own minds.
So there you are, Microsoft's little sock puppet... infecting Gnome with .NET filth...
Get out of my eyes before I'm forgetting myself!
Yeah, even water outweirds you.
H2O - the new soviet Russia.
Well actually water *is* pretty weird as a chemical. Possibly on some other planet they say the same about ammonia while they fart out some dry sodium hydroxide though.
all about destroying standards eh? where have i heard that before .. was it ooxml? was it..
if ms spins it, you better believe you gave up your first born if you bought into it!
It's called corporate totalitarianism.
It's called shrieking hyperbole.
> where I worked on making movies they were compiled.
There-s a major pwnage in that answer there.
http://barrapunto.com/ - News for nerds, en español
But, it gets to the matter of what "Open Source" is. I believe that you are promoting the idea that "Open Source" just means "Source", without the idea of "Open".
As an example, is Windows "Open Source" or not? It can be argued that Windows is, because source is made available. Therefore, for some, it is open, and that is the end of the discussion.
You can substitute VMS in there (I had it on micro-fiche), or any number of other programs.
However, consider what "Open" means -- if the software is platform-locked, it isn't Open in the sense that it can provide a base that lives longer than its platform (imagine a world in which PostScript use was locked to the LaserWriter -- no LaserWriter would mean no PostScript).
In order for this Openness to exist for programs, there must be certain conditions: source must be available, there cannot be a platform lock-in, and there cannot be a usage lock-in (among some other characteristics). Bruce tried to define those necessary pre-conditions in his definition of "Open Source".
Call the variant "Source Available", or something, but please do not dilute the concept of "Open Source".
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Try reading at -1. The moderation patterns become obvious after awhile. Try also reading all the responses to old articles on anything Linux/Microsoft.
Oh and I've ususally been moderated down days later.
When MS Vista came out, there were many voices telling how stable and wonderful it was and all the bad stories were evil lies perpetuated by linux fanboys. When MS Vista SP1 came out, the same and/or similar voices were saying "well NOW they have best system Microsoft ever produced and all the crap from the initial Vista release (which was really crap) has been fixed."
Some of the responses in the BSOD at the Olympics in Berlin^H^H^H^Hijing were comical and included several that insisted that it had to be a hoax.
Bruce is one of the Good Guys, in my opinion, and I agree with him most of the time. He's right on, on this one.
Your post is just astounding, a perfect example of 'if you're not with me you're against me' posturing, backed up with a healthy amount of insults and finished off with veiled assertions that I'm paid to "redefine" terminology for Microsoft's benefit. You've failed to actually address my point, which is that "open source" as a combination of words already suggests a definition that the OSI has been and is trying to extend. When you're trying to work out who is redefining the term open source, I suggest you try looking at the group who tried to trademark it.
In the meantime, I suggest you do some research on how the English language has evolved over the last hundred years or so for an idea on why just saying "we've defined it as this" is not enough, and I can only agree with you when you say that arbitrarily redefining a term to fit what a small subsection of the population wants is idiocy. Hell, it was exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Have you ever read Shakespeare? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Bruce Perens.
Thanks for the information - and you know, I never would've known I was wrong on the basis of the fact you so generously provided - but your telling me so at the end sure cleared that right up ;)
You know I've been out of this scene for a while. Got busy, work, family and all that.
Came back to this BULL SHIT discussion!
(and hi Bruce -->keep the good fight going, it's clear we are gonna need it)
Here's the deal. Being able to look at the code means nothing unless one can make use of the code they see. If the terms are Microsoft Windows only, then the USE value of that code is diminished significantly.
That's not OPEN at all. Really, it's just kind of sort of open.
The body of OPEN SOURCE code can be run on anything capable of the task. There are no restrictions. That's OPEN as in, "If I can see it, I can USE it."
This body of OPEN SOURCE code is one atomic body of code in that it's possible to compute without paying any corporation anything for the ability to do so. The USE value inherent in this is very high --in fact, it's higher than the sum of the contributions!
The deal Microsoft is pitching here isn't part of that body, so characterized by the term OPEN SOURCE. The reason is simple; namely, having to run it on Windows operating systems means having to pay a tax before actually computing with the code.
OPEN SOURCE software, or FREE SOFTWARE is software that comes in source form, SO USERS OF IT ARE FREE TO USE IT ON ANY HARDWARE THEY LIKE.
This attempt to redefine what OPEN SOURCE means, through some word smithing, on par with that seen regularly from CORRUPT politicians, is nothing more than an attempt to split the body of OPEN SOURCE software, in the hopes that it's use value will be diminished as well.
That's not cool, and you really ought to feel like a bit of an ass for even thinking you can come here, to fucking Slashdot of all places, pull this shit, and come away clean.
Microsoft has been perfectly and totally clear about their core ideological opposition to OPEN SOURCE and FREE SOFTWARE movements. Microsoft believes that nobody should compute without paying them some money first.
Secondly, that requirement that money change hands also means having control over people and their computers when there would otherwise be no such thing.
This fight goes way back and the lines have not changed one bit.
Being able to see the code doesn't mean jack, unless that code can be used. The greatest possible USE value comes from anybody being able to use the software on anything they believe capable of serving their needs.
That's OPEN SOURCE and FREE SOFTWARE.
This simple idea has seen the body of GPL (for the most part) code ported to pretty much anything that can run code. Microcontrollers, cell phones, computers of all kinds! You name it, and Linux / OPEN SOURCE / FREE SOFTWARE runs on it.
I, and many other, users and contributors to the body of OPEN SOURCE, FREE SOFTWARE didn't contribute so that we could turn right around and see a company like Microsoft profit from others simply wanting to use our work.
That's not the point at all.
We did it because we believe in complete and total freedom to compute on our terms, on our hardware, and in our ways. We think this idea is so important that our only restriction on our code is to prevent jackasses like you from closing it off in an attempt to make money off of it, or deny others the freedom we put out there, one keystroke at a time.
If you really believe this all comes down to some bull shit word play on what "open" means, then you are either truly stupid, or one selfish mo-fo and neither of those look good at all.
I know what Open Source means. I've watched this crap come from Microsoft and others, wanting to profit from the code, without actually adding value in like kind. Seen it from companies not wanting to actually compete and build software that is worth the money they ask every year.
(and that is a growing and substantial amount of money)
Hell, this turned out to be a bit of a rant huh?
Good.
Take your Microsoft SPIN job and go home. The FOSS movement has made it pal. The body of code is
Good grief! I've been doing stuff lately (and yes, that's MY AC post below), and come back here to SLASHDOT of all places and see people who don't grok this?
It's simple.
Microsoft wants to make money on every computer sold. They want to make money anytime a program is written and make money anytime a program is used. Further, they want then to exert control over every computer, every program and every use, and they want to do it with the need to pay to use your own damn computer!
That's all this is.
That's all it ever is.
If, they even one time submit to the idea that people can actually compute on their hardware, without paying for the right to do so, they then must compete with the growing body of OPEN SOURCE, FREE SOFTWARE. That means actual innovation and value adds worth paying for! Truth is, the market for that kind of software exists and it's profitable and it makes sense, but IT'S A MUCH SMALLER MARKET.
Most core computing needs today are well served by no cost, OPEN SOURCE software that runs on any capable hardware. That means that most people really don't have to pay anybody anything to get their computing done and that scares the living shit out of Microsoft. They are big, hungry and always looking for new revenue.
What they are not doing is adding real value in return for that revenue.
While they have been figuring out new ways to charge for the basic act of computing, the rest of us have been writing code, educating users and building something that DELIVERS MORE USE VALUE than any one person contributes. This is a hell of a deal, and everybody working to make it better knows it.
And again the problem is that most computer users don't know it yet.
This bullshit is WHY THEY DON'T KNOW IT.
Blogging because I can...
Bruce, It sounds like you're making a circular argument: We defined "open source" as one sole definition/one sole meaning (before there used to be multiple unofficial inconsistent definitions/meanings of "open source"), therefore our official definition must be its sole definition/sole meaning now?
I am dweeb, yes. A microsoft dweeb? I don't think so. It's not that I disagree with you that Microsoft is trying for a major land grab by creating this license and pushing it on whoever it can, I do think that it is. It's just that I disagree with your logic here that you guys own the phrase "open source" when it was already in use and had multiple meanings already well before you got a hold of it.
Words mean different things to different people. To a Microsoft guy, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and open is Microsoft Limited Permissive Open or Office Open. Did you invent those words? Did you patent them? No. Get over it.
Since you are on slashdot, you are likely working on a technical field, and you are thus aware that technical terms are most useful when they are properly defined. The definition of open source promulgated by the OSI is well established by now, and sticking to it aids communication. It seems rather counter-productive to argue against a useful technical definition on the basis that without the definition, the same words could be interpreted as something more vague, especially when the vague purpose can be communicated by saying that the source is available.
If some guy decides to release his superduper class library for a given platform under the GPL and only for Linux, the guy who wrote the code is the only one who decides under which license he will release the goods and to what platform. The GPL isn't loved by everyone, so some might say "booh! you shouldn't have released that under the GPL, now I can't use it".
You know what? That's simply tough luck. The same with this. If MS decides to release a piece of code under some very restrictive license, and it's only for windows, who else is out there to decide what THEY, the owners of the code, should do?
Oh, and about the 'open source' term/name: aren't there different definitions about that floating around for decades already? To me, open source means: OPEN and SOURCE and there's a license attached to it which says when you can use it. If no license is attached, it's not OPEN SOURCE, as you fall back onto the boundaries drawn by copyright law, i.o.w.: you can't use it.
So in short: OPEN SOURCE means: access to and usage of sourcecode under a license. That license can effectively restrict the usage of the source code to literaly 0. Too bad, write your own.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Ok. Let's call what Microsoft is doing "Sole Source", or just "Sole Sourcing". And let Microsoft argue against that by saying that it's an *open* "Sole Source" license. This is a much more accurate definition in my opinion than just saying that their license is not "open source". Sole Source is already an existing term with the correct definition from the get go.
When describing it, you could just bring up the hypothetical example of a fictitious company called Blue Hat, Blue Hat would have written/purchased their unix-like operating system from scratch, but seeing what CentOS did to Red Hat -- Blue Hat only opened their code and only accepted code from others under the condition of a "Sole Source" license. So the entire code base, on Blue Hat's repository that third party developers were willing to "Sole Source" on top Blue Hat, is "Sole Sourced" as well.
This pretty much guarantees that when CentOS tries to copy the code from Blue Hat or any of its applications, it can't anymore, because then in order to use it -- it would have to rebrand it completely (because it's not permitted to use the Blue Hat trademark), and in order to rebrand it completely -- it would have to break the "Sole Source" agreement of remaining on top of Blue Hat (because it wouldn't be on top of Blue Hat if it wasn't called Blue Hat anymore). So in the end, Blue Hat wins with this arrangement. It wouldn't matter what kind of product you built, or what device/server your software would end up running on, if you sole source your project -- that project will only be able to run on Blue Hat PCs, or Blue Hat cell phones, or Blue Hat Zunes, otherwise Blue Hat would probably sue you.
How about...UID 99501?
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
While I agree that the excepted definition of open source implies a lot more than simple access to the source (such as certain usage rights and ethical disclosures, according to wikipedia), I maintain that this is incorrect. The term "open source" should not imply anything beyond having viewing rights to the source. Nowhere does that definition imply at face value anything else. If you want open source to mean a collection of rights based on the ability to view code, then a new definition is needed. Depending on the situation, access to a given piece of source may or may not help a developer, regardless of their right to modify and redistribute that modification.
It was pretty obvious it was a Windows-Only open source site.. if you want all-platform open source, I don't see why you wouldn't think of source-forge first anyway?
Miguel complained and a few days ago, Microsoft fixed their license.
Problem solved.
And see if Sony Electronics will let you.
"It's been 28 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
but still they sued.
Open Source isn't OSI trademark. So still they CAN sue.
Your mentioning of Windows being an OS trademark is either irrelevant or bolsters my tale: Open Source is a term that was popularised in this modern closed source world by the OSI. Open Source in technical papers would not be OSI. Open Source in plumbing would not be OSI.
Open Source in computer source code IS OSI.
If it doesn't want to do this -- if it doesn't want to abide by this most basic principle of open source -- then call CodePlex something else and we'll all move on."
What was that most basic principle of open source again?
Cause I thought it was kind of, you know, the source part. And it being open. As in you can read it.
Can you read the fucking code? Learn from it, write your own imitator in Linux?
Stop bitching. If you're not a skilled enough coder to steal someone else's ideas without directly copy/pasting their code, thats not my problem. And its not Microsoft's, either.
It is hard to believe microsoft is associated with any open source projects
If anything, it is the Free Software movement that has attempted to redefine Open Source as something other then open source. Words have meanings, and FOSS != open source, not for most people on the street. A judge or jury is going to have a much easier time making the connection to the availability of source code as open source, then showing them the 10 or 9 commandments of the FOSS movement.
Microsoft is no more guilty of misusing this term then Sun, IBM, Apple or any other large software company. They all use fine print to limit customers and leverage their proprietary code. I would think that Apple is the most egregious party when it comes to making an ill gotten buck off of FOSS. IBM and Sun actually give back some of their work to the community.
Maybe a better term for 'Open Source' would be 'Open Development' or maybe we should just recognize that there are lots of different licenses and stop crying when someone doesn't use the one we like.
I think mostly they'd like to dilute "Open Source" to mean any code with source code. This is important to them because it's the rights connected to Open Source that scare Microsoft (and others). If you can call it Open Source when there isn't even the right to compile the code, or to use the information you get from reading it, customers don't have a reason to ask for it any longer.
I'd mod you up, if you weren't already at "5". This is exactly what's going on with Microsoft's "open source" concept; another example of embrace-extend-extinguish. They've embraced the idea of open source software, and now they're trying to "extend" the definition to mean software with source code but with no rights to use it or extend it.
Guess which is the next step?
I just hate FUD, regardless of who's spreading it. I've yet to see any actual evidence that Microsoft pays people to post anything on Slashdot. Until I do, I'm filing claims like yours into the bullshit bucket, and I hope everybody else reading this board does too.
Comment of the year
If Microsoft wants to associate themselves with the term "Limited Open-Source Software", isn't it their LOSS?
I suppose you think that hot dogs have always been called hot dogs - there was no intervening period while the phrase gained acceptance, it was literally just a mental switch-flip and everyone was calling them hotdogs.
Not at all. I'm sure there was an intervening period. However, just as with the term "open source", that time has long passed.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I really don't agree, but there you go.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
This stuff is just standard these days. You've got to expect it.
Bruce Perens.
I don't get why everyone digs EEE. When the extend the software, they do make it better. Right..? Right?!?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If I was a Pixar fanboi with a fetish for low userIDs then I might agree.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There are good restrictions and bad restrictions ;-)
The GPL restricts you from restricting rights of others. If GPL would not do that, then it would not protect interests of others. I.e. it would allow restriction of code accessibility. That means that, from logic point of view, that there is no way, how to please everyone. So GPL chooses the restriction that benefits the majority. That makes it Open. The restrictions, placed on code by MS, are not making the code Open.
Sorry. I'm hearing-impaired and perhaps my screen reader is doing something wrong. Would you mind to explain the difference between "OPEN SOURCE" in 1st part of your sentence and "OPEN SOURCE" in 2nd part of your sentence?
Ohh, The first one has no capital letters at all, but the second one has the first letters of Open and Source capitalized.
This space for rent.
You are sounding rather elitist, as is other people on this thread. .NET that I am willing to make open source, but, of course, it only runs on Windows. I was trying to find places to post my program for it to get downloaded. Of course SourceForge, but they don't advertise recently uploaded projects, so noone knows my program exists.
I have recently developed a program for
I was told to post on Freshmeat.net to advertise my program. To my dismay, they won't accept programs that are Windows only; they don't care if the program does run on Windows, just can't be exclusive to the OS.
It seems to me this isn't "a tactic to try to get people to associate "open source" with Microsoft and not Linux" but more a way to have a central place for Windows only people who are considered outcasts in the "open source" world to post their projects.
You guy shave no problems with Freshmeat being restrictive but whine when MS does the same thing.
Very hypocritical and am very turned off to the notion of even becoming a part of such a close-minded community.
And by the way, my project supports Apache 2.0 and MS is fine with that.
I'm the same person as just above who made the .NET program.
Where does their site say that Open Source = something only legal to use on Windows?
Another Elitist, unfounded comment.
Open Source means the source code is free to use under the stipulations of the attached License. Linux open source is the same way and so is the Terms of Service on CodePlex stating that the open source code is governed by the attached license.
Which is exactly why some of us prefer the term Free Software. :) Besides, they are much more loathe to say they are Free Software than Open Source because even if one misunderstands the definition of "free" it means they still can't sell their software.
RMS was there. But he'd met this pretty girl on the conference staff who managed to mention that she was a massage therapist. And Richard got this girl to give him a massage. So, he wasn't in the room for this talk. He would have screamed, if he was there.
Bruce Perens.
You did not catch my sarcasm. Open source is open source - regardless of capitalization. The world has already some understanding of what "open source" means. It means Open Source - access to source code and right to tinker with it in order to enhance/improve/fix/learn/... or just for the fun of it. Now Microsoft comes by and attempts to sneak different meaning of open source to the public. Joe Sixpack is not going to catch the difference when the only hint is capitalization. Just like I pretended above. Therefore we are up in arms. We do not want Microsoft to take advantage of the label. Even if the label is not rubber stamped by USPTO. It is already coined. MS noticed a trendy word and wants to jump the bandwagon. Only the bandwagon has some rules. And anybody who wants to join, has to follow the rules. Simple CSS rule { text-transform: uppercase; } could make worlds of difference. That is not right.
Marking rules todays world. If you can convince enough people black is white, it really is.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
hmmm, threw him another carrot they did? aaah, but the stick still looms, it does.
-YoB ( Yoda of Borg )
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus