Microsoft Redefines "Open Standards"

Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft is at it again: trying to redefine what 'open' means. This time it wants open standards to be 'balanced' — for them to include patent-encumbered technologies under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Which just happens to be incompatible with free software licensed under the GNU GPL."

Comments

8==O=P=E=N==S=T=A=N=D=A=R=D=S==D ~~-_

[Anonymous Coward]

thunk.

GPL is not the definition of open

[Richard_at_work]

Which just happens to be incompatible with free software licensed under the GNU GPL."

Hate to break it to you, but the GPL is not the be-all end-all of openness, and the benchmark of "open" is not necessarily "compatible with the GPL".

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Patent-encumbered definitely means NOT open.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[0100010001010011]

Anyone know if it is BSD, Apache, MIT, LGPL, etc etc?

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[stinerman]

That's absolutely true.

I'd say an "open" standard would mean that anyone could implement the standard without need to buy a license to implement all or part of it.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[ByOhTek]

It depends on what you want to be open.

If you want the source of all derived works to be available to all, and encourage more community development, then you want GPL.

If you want the source of the original work to be available to all, but allow the option of closed source for derived works (give more options to the authors of /direct/ derivatives, allow it to fit into more business and distribution models), MIT and BSD are "more open".

So, "it", is defined by what your primary goals are. I tend to prefer modified BSD/MIT style licenses myself, but the GPL certainly has a place for a lot of development models.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[thisnamestoolong]

GPL is certainly not the end-all be-all of openness, but we need to define our terms somewhere. When defining static terms in a non-static world, the line is always going to be arbitrary and cases that are close to that line will always highlight this fact readily. Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term. If you are going to retain patents on your software, it is not open. Period. End of story. There is no legitimate argument that can be made here, the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard. The GPL has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[larry bagina]

Some GPL software is patent encumbered. IBM, for example, donated some of their patents for Open Source projects. Postgresql, being BSD licensed, removed/rewrote their code so as not to infringe.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

implement for private use or implement for commercial use? devils is in the details...

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TheRaven64]

Lots of open standards are patent-encumbered with RAND terms on patent licensing, including the MPEG family, and various hardware standards such as DDR. The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'. If a standard is open and royalty free then it can be implemented without problems by GPL'd software. If it is only one or the other, then there may be problems.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Dragonslicer]

the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard.

Copyright would be the claim of 100% ownership over the code. A patent is even less open, since you aren't even allowed to re-implement the software, even if you write it entirely yourself without ever seeing any of the source code of the original implementation.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[thisnamestoolong]

Copyright would be the claim of 100% ownership over the code. A patent is even less open, since you aren't even allowed to re-implement the software, even if you write it entirely yourself without ever seeing any of the source code of the original implementation.

Thank you for the distinction, that is an excellent point.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

No, GPL is the non-end of openness

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[swillden]

The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'. If a standard is open and royalty free then it can be implemented without problems by GPL'd software

Open and royalty-free are necessary but not sufficient conditions for use by GPL software.

There could be additional encumbrances on a patent other than royalties. A common one is that each user has to obtain permission from the patent holder. Even if this permission is easy to obtain and costs nothing, that would still be encumbered from the GPL's perspective because it would impose restrictions on those who receive the software.

Contrary to the GGP's opinion, while the GPL may not be the "be-all end-all" of openness it's a pretty damned good yardstick. If a license (copyright or patent) is compatible with the GPL, you know that it's open.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

True, allowing something licensed under RAND terms to be an "open standard" is something the industry has been doing for a long time. Microsoft didn't start this, and this is a complete non-story.
OTOH, I wouldn't call something you weren't allowed to distribute yourself without paying license money "open source", even if it did use these "open standards".
Then again, I live in Europe, so neener-neener!

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

You are confusing an normal standard with an open standard. An open standard can be implemented by anyone without any restrictions.

A standard imbuded with RAND is never open. It might be a industrial standard but it's not an open standard.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but as long as I give away the source code with every copy, include the license, send my code changes to the code maintainers, and follow the other rules of GPL I can still sell GPL licensed software.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[thetoadwarrior]

Open certainly doesn't include patents. That much is certain.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[ShieldW0lf]

GPL: We don't allow the keeping of slaves around here.

BSD: I don't keep slaves. But I don't mind if you do.

If you actually think BSD is more open because it gives plantation owners more flexibility, you're insane. Please understand, I don't mean you to read that as "I don't like what you're saying." I mean you to read that as "You have a dangerous and fundamental disconnect with reality".

Quit with the doublethink and just be honest enough to call a spade a spade, ok? Just say "I'm just a little guy and it's a harsh and fucked up world out there and I will do what I have to do to feed myself even if it takes away other peoples freedom" and stop twisting reality to make yourself feel better about yourself.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[jipn4]

Lots of open standards are patent-encumbered with RAND terms on patent licensing, including the MPEG family

MPEG is not an open standard, it is a proprietary standard that happens to be owned by a consortium.

The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'.

"Open" means that it is published and can be implemented and modified without restrictions. MPEG is not an open standard, neither is Java.

Being implementable by open source software is necessary, but not sufficient, for something to be an open standard.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is certainly not the end-all be-all of openness, but we need to define our terms somewhere.

Exactly! Unless we want our discussion to be meaningless, we can't go around redefining terms willy nilly.

Imagine, for example, the confusion if someone redefined other static terms that everybody knows... like, "free"...

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TheRaven64]

In that case, you seem to be using a different definition of 'open standard' to the rest of the world. Of the million or so search results for 'MPEG open standard' you will find very few claiming that MPEG is not an open standard (I didn't find any glancing through the results, but there are no doubt some somewhere). Pages from the likes of the IEEE, Apple, CNet, the BBC, and so on all describe MPEG as an open standard.

You can redefine terms to mean something different from how they have been used for decades and complain that everyone else is using the wrong definition, but you are unlikely to get much sympathy. If you want a term that means something different from the accepted definition, create a new term, don't try to hijack an existing one.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Patent-encumbered definitely means NOT open.

No patent-encumbered means it's not free. Open != Free (as in freedom). It doesn't matter if it's open source if you can't use that source in a meaningful way. You can have open and limit freedoms thus making it "encumbered."

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[MikeVx]

If you want a term that means something different from the accepted definition, create a new term, don't try to hijack an existing one.

So I take it that you also do not support the powers-of-ten redefinition of KB, MB, GB and so forth?

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[swillden]

I'd say an "open" standard would mean that anyone could implement the standard without need to buy a license to implement all or part of it.

I'd say that's not enough to be "open". Try this:

Anyone can implement the standard for any purpose and allow the implementation to be redistributed and/or modified by anyone for any purpose without either requesting or buying a license and without requiring any downstream users, distributors or modifiers to request or buy a license.

That would make it GPL compatible, I think, and would be significantly more open than your description, which would still allow the patent holders to significantly restrict all usage, but without requiring payment, and to totally restrict some specific uses.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[gbjbaanb]

Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term.

nonsense, Microsoft's new definition of the term open simple refers to the inclusivity of the number of people who are affected by their licences. If the definition of openness means it is available to everyone equally, then the new definition from MS makes perfect sense.

Their software is completely open: absolutely anyone can do nothing with it. :-)

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[jipn4]

In that case, you seem to be using a different definition of 'open standard' to the rest of the world.

I'm using the definition of the EU, half a dozen EU member states, by Bruce Perens, and even Vijay Kapoor of Microsoft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

You can redefine terms to mean something different from how they have been used for decades and complain that everyone else is using the wrong definition, but you are unlikely to get much sympathy.

Yes, *you* can, *you* are obviously trying to, but *you* shouldn't.

Of the million or so search results for 'MPEG open standard' you will find very few claiming that MPEG is not an open standard

The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open", and they have the might and force of some of the biggest entertainment, marketing, and consumer electronics companies behind them. We should not let them.

If MPEG is "open", then the term "open" has lost any useful meaning.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TheRaven64]

Correct. 1KB has been 1024 bytes since at least the '60s. Suddenly deciding that it's 1000 does nothing other than create confusion. The K prefix on SI units means 1000, but byte is not an SI unit. Redefining the prefixes to be powers of ten is not even self-consistent, unless you redefine a byte to be ten bits (technically, it can be; an octet is 8 bits, a byte is an architecture-specific size, but most machines built in the last 30 years have had 8-bit bytes, so byte and octet are used interchangeably). By using power of ten units for prefixes and power of two units for bytes and nibbles, you make things needlessly complicated, and you break 50 years of existing software that uses the old meanings.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[thisnamestoolong]

Touche -- yes if you look at the phrase as a bit of Orwellian (Microsoftian?) doublespeak, then it does certainly make sense. Microsoft's new software offerings are doubleplus open, says the Ministry of Truth.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[quanticle]

You don't have to give away the source code with every copy to comply with the GPL. You have to make the source available. This could be as simple as putting up a tarball of the source code on your web site and including a note with the binary notifying users that they can download the source code from your site if they wish to do so.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

"Byte" never had a long standing official definition as ten bits, whereas kilo did have such a definition as 1000 in all situations. Then someone came along an decided that it should actually mean 1024, but only in some cases. (the SI prefix is k, not K by the way). There's nothing wrong with a byte being 8 bits - nobody's calling an 8 bit byte a decabit, are they?

Which is why it gets on my nerves when people accuse the powers-of-ten definitions of the prefixes as being new or "redefining" - the hypocrisy is staggering.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Agreed. Thats why we have KiB and co. as measures instead for those that have to use powers of 10.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TheRaven64]

Did you even read that link? From the second paragraph:

The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage

The definition I gave is the one that has been accepted by the computing industry since around 1970. The definition you quote:

The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand and the Venezuelan governments

This is a very new definition. Look at the citation at the end of the article; this definition was adopted by the EU in 2004, after several decades of use of the term with other meanings. The other citations for this definition also date from 2004. From the fourth paragraph of the Wikipedia entry:

Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T...

The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open. These organisations have been issuing open standards with this definition since 1947 and 1986, respectively.

The fact that, around 2004, a number of groups decided that they would only accept open standards that were also royalty free as being 'real' open standards does not alter the fact that the this has, historically, not been part of the definition. A large number of patented standards were published and described as open standards before 2004, and retroactively changing the definition means that these suddenly go from being open to non-open.

You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion. Why not call open, royalty-free, standards Free Standards or something which does not have historical meanings associated with it?

The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open"

You'll note that I didn't mention the MPEG-LA as people describing MPEG as an open standard. Do the IEEE (which is, among other things, a standards body) and BBC (which has produced a patent-free video CODEC that is due to become VC-2) have a vested interest in redefining 'open'? Or are they just using the definition in the same way that it's been used for decades. MPEG-1 was described as an open standard back in 1988, 16 years before the EU decided on a definition that excludes it, and it certainly wasn't the only standard with RAND-licensed terms, just one of the most well-known.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[jipn4]

This is a very new definition.

Even if that were true (it is not), so what? It is the current definition, and it's the only meaningful and useful definition.

Just because we accepted slavery, lack of voting rights for women, throwing people in jail for their sexual orientation, or mixing church and state in the past doesn't mean we have to continue to do so. And it's the same with the misuse of the term "open".

The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open.

Yes: old bodies dominated by big corporate interests. In the past, they have been able to get away with it. Today, we don't let them anymore.

You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion

Nothing surprises me. I'm just saying that enough is enough. Don't use the term "open" to describe standards that are clearly proprietary. That kind of misuse and deliberate confusion may have been fine in the 1970's, but it is unacceptable today, period.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Tweenk]

I'd say an "open" standard would mean that anyone could implement the standard without need to buy a license to implement all or part of it for commercial use.

Fixed.
If you can't sell it without paying fees to the originator of the standard, it's not really 'open'.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Old97]

Yours is a ridiculous and arrogant rebuttal. Equating changes in the definition of "open" to human rights? Were you hit in the head as a child or what? Raven's history of the definition is accurate. I'm old enough to have lived though it as an IT professional.

What is with this "old bodies"? Are you a kid? Do you think that everything older that 10 years is irrelevant? I hate to break it to you but almost everything you use in the personal computer field comes from ideas and inventions much older than 10 years. Of course it's easier if you can dismiss things as irrelevant because that means there is less you will have to learn, doesn't it?

"Dominated by corporate interests"? So who dominates the EU and the governments of Europe? Do European corporations have little or no say? Are European corporations necessarily worse than European politicians and political parties? Are technology corporations necessarily less technically astute than your average politician?

What finally gets me is your last paragraph. What an arrogant bastard! Who are you to tell the world what is or is not acceptable? Who are you to tell the world what words or definitions they can use? Who are you to summarily dismiss some 40 years of IT? Raven supported his point with a set of verifiable facts and your response is does nothing to refute anything Raven wrote.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TheRaven64]

I was going to reply to the grandparent, but this post - 'arrogant bastard' and all - expresses my point far more eloquently than I would have done. Thank you.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[BitZtream]

I'm pretty sure neither you nor the parent post actually know what orthagonal means.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[BitZtream]

Contrary to the GGP's opinion, while the GPL may not be the "be-all end-all" of openness it's a pretty damned good yardstick. If a license (copyright or patent) is compatible with the GPL, you know that it's open.

Thats an absolutely shitty measurement, and warped to fit your specific agenda and idea of what open is, which is a lot different from mine as I consider GPL to be more restrictive than most of the commercial licenses I've had to deal with over the years.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[david_thornley]

However, the GPL has been around for a long time, and there's a whole lot of GPLed software. I regard "incompatible with the GPL" as a problem in standards or free/open source software.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[sjames]

Nevertheless, I find it interesting that RAND, "reasonable and non-discriminatory" generally makes free and Free software impossible (that is, it discriminates) and "reasonable" generally doesn't prevent pricing smaller competitors out of the market with minimum quantities. That is, it's RAND for sufficiently loose use of the terms 'reasonable' and 'non-discriminatory'. Sorta like alcoholism is 'good' for sufficiently loose definitions of 'good'.

GPL may not be the end-all and be-all, but it is a decent sized chunk of the 'open' world and is not the only license that is for all practical purposes discriminated against by the 'non-discriminatory' terms.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[gad_zuki!]

I disagree. BSD is much more open and public domain is the most open of them all. Cheerleading the GPL gets you mod points around here, but youre still wrong.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[ByOhTek]

Wow. Take some of your own advise.

I stated the disadvantages and advantages without any hyperbola or rhetoric. You couldn't do the same and make your point.

Software doesn't think and isn't self aware, comparing to slavery is ridiculous. Please, as you said, call a spade a spade.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

Open and royalty-free are necessary but not sufficient conditions for use by GPL software.

And since the GPL is not the be-all-end-all of openness, why does it need to matter if, and why does something need to play nice with the GPL to be open?

TFA is taking about open standards, not GNU/free standards - GPL isn't about open, it's about GNU/free. And I disagree with your last assertion - if you're interested in a GNU/free standard, then compliance with the GPL is a relevant yardstick. If you're interested in open it's irrelevant (GNU doesn't care about open) - weather or not the BSD or MIT folk have a problem with it or not is a much more relevant yardstick.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[jipn4]

Yours is a ridiculous and arrogant rebuttal. Equating changes in the definition of "open" to human rights? Were you hit in the head as a child or what? Raven's history of the definition is accurate.

You really have no clue about human history, do you. The ability to speak publicly, the ability to print, and to disseminate information has been at the heart of the development of human rights throughout history; you cannot separate one from the other.

I'm old enough to have lived though it as an IT professional.

So am I, which is why I can tell you that you're full of it. Go search the USENET archives, for example: you won't even find any significant mention of the term "open standard" prior to the introduction of "open source" in 1998. The term simply wasn't in common use. After that, many companies have been trying to misrepresent both their software and their standards as "open" in order to mislead customers into thinking that their products are something that they are not.

What finally gets me is your last paragraph. What an arrogant bastard! Who are you to tell the world what is or is not acceptable?

Let me translate this for you, since you're obviously too dense to understand simple English: "It is not acceptable" means "People like me will not shut up because of your bogus arguments or bogus claims of authority". Clear enough?

And what ultimately matters is the legal definitions; the EU has made a good first step towards that. You now go and try specifying MPEG as an "open standard" on an EU contract and see where it gets you.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, your point is retarded. At the core of GPL (or any license) is copyright. You own the data. The most closed would be you refusing to allow anyone to see it or use it in any capacity. By extension, the most open would be allowing anyone to use it for any purpose in any way they choose.

Doublethink indeed. The GPL "closes" certain avenues of use which are "open" under more "open" licenses like the BSD license. Words mean things.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[hairyfeet]

Because it was NOT done so that kilo means the same everywhere. It WAS done so that HDD manufacturers could bone you by saying a drive is a Gb when it was actually 900 and something Mb.

You see children, once upon a time, or as my oldest puts it "when dinosaurs ruled the earth", there was this little thing called the "race to a gigabyte" which equaled big cash to the company that won the race. That was because data was beginning to explode and bigger is better, especially when we are talking megabytes of storage. So a company said "Hey, we can use metric instead of computer jargon and win the race!" and so they did.

If this was about fixing the metric system for computers then the ONLY thing you would see on hard drives boxes is MiB or GiB, but you don't. In fact you would be hard pressed to even find anything other than a "formatted size may be different" hidden in tiny print on the back somewhere. Folks don't like getting boned by bullshit, especially when it complicates everything and the only "good" it does is giving a marketing drone another bullet point on his hard drive PPT.

So lets just call a spade a spade, shall we? The whole screwed up Gb VS GiB was cooked up by a bunch of butt monkey marketing drones to win the size race. If they find a bullshit reason for labeling 1Tb as 5Tb and actually get away with it, how fast do you think they jump on it? The definitions of Kb, Mb, and Gb had been made in the 1960s. So don't buy the bullshit. Either demand that they go back to being honest, or demand that the ONLY thing they label is GiB and MiB. Because otherwise you are just falling for marketing speak.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[goltzc]

Yeah but why did we have to change, they were the ones who sucked.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Stu Charlton]

So am I, which is why I can tell you that you're full of it. Go search the USENET archives, for example: you won't even find any significant mention of the term "open standard" prior to the introduction of "open source" in 1998. The term simply wasn't in common use. After that, many companies have been trying to misrepresent both their software and their standards as "open" in order to mislead customers into thinking that their products are something that they are not.

That's completely, utterly false. 'The Open Group' standards for DCE, UNIX and X dates back to the 1980's. The OMG had open standards in the early 90's for distributed objects. The ANSI, ISO, and IEEE go much further back (POSIX dates back to 1988).

Open source reference implementations are useful to supplement standards, but they're two different things, with two different outcomes. Open source without an open (potentially standard) interoperability architecture is unlikely to generate interoperable & competing implementations. Sure, you can always fork, but that leads to a cacaphony of slightly differing and incompatible options that geeks might love but most customers despise.

On the other hand, open standards without an open source reference implementation may cause problems with the standard's proper adoption, as there's no example for implementors to use. But going too far on the open source side is also a risk to standards adoption -- if an open source RI is copylefted, that dissuades adoption in its own way. Whereas a more permissive license, say MIT, Apache, CC-Attribution, etc. would better incentivize adoption.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[ShieldW0lf]

Software doesn't think and isn't self aware, comparing to slavery is ridiculous. Please, as you said, call a spade a spade.

The people who use it and end up dependent upon it while not having access to the recipe are self aware. But then, you understood that, you're just trying to confound the issue...

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[ByOhTek]

Sorry, I don't buy how that makes it slavery.

Anyway, using closed source isn't as bad as slavery, especially if migration is trivial. Usually migration from closed to open source is easier than from open to closed (you get a couple issues like Exchange that are the exception), and in many cases, both directions aren't hard. So what if the users can't edit the source code? In most cases, they can't edit/comprehend the open source software's code either, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO, so the ability to view the code grants them no advantage. If the ability to view the code granted them a sufficient advantage, then they would use or switch to open source software.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[denmarkw00t]

Furthermore, you can charge for the source if you charge for the binary, you just can't make the source more expensive than the binary.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[NoOneInParticular]

I'm pretty sure neither you nor the parent post actually know what orthagonal means.

At least they know how to spell it, which gives them one leg up to you.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[HiThere]

No, GPL isn't the definition of open. But I've yet to see anything that I thought of as open that was also incompatible with the GPL.

BSD is open. It has rightful claims to being more open than the GPL, But you'll notice that it's compatible with the GPL.

(Actually, there's a question as to whether the original BSD license was as open as the GPL. I feel undecided about that, but it *was* incompatible with the GPL. OTOH, I've not seen anything with the original BSD license in the last two decades. [Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means I don't see it.])

And in particular, I wouldn't call anything with a RAND license open. Reasonable is given so many different interpretations by so many different people. And it's incompatible with most FOSS software. So as normally interpreted RAND is hardly non-discriminatory.

Really it doesn't intrinsically matter whether the monopoly is enforced by patent or copyright, RAND is an oxymoron created for PR purposes and only serving those purposes. Because of legal peculiarities it's usually enforced by patents, but that's largely irrelevant to the basic point. The non-discriminatory part of RAND means I get to choose who I will discriminate against. O, and I also get to define what's reasonable. It's a PR term, so one would be a fool to expect it to mean anything else. (Actually I'm oversimplifying. I think that they interpret non-discriminatory to mean that they charge the same price to everybody. One can reasonably argue that that's a reasonable interpretation of the term. In practice that means that by selecting the terms I can disadvantage whomever I choose.)

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TeknoHog]

I've understood the GPL so that anyone who gets the binary has access to the source. So you can sell binaries and only give the source to the paying customers. However, this won't work for long, because the customers have a right to distribute the binaries and sources as they wish.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[NoOneInParticular]

SI works in bytes, not bits, so the fact that a byte is 8 bits is irrelevant from the perspective of SI. I'm personally very glad that SI took over and removed the completely nonsensical scheme that has grown from the 60s. Why on earth is a 2^10 the important building block in a binary system??? That just doesn't make sense (note the Chewbacca defense here). It's a stupid mix of a decimal and a binary system, and the fact that it goes back to the 60s make it approximately as interesting as the inch. Once you cross the threshold of a few tens of those 2^10 blocks, nobody really cares anymore that it is binary, and we're working with the actual order of things. As the whole system of physical measurements is based on order 10, why would bytes be different?

If you want a true binary system, go for true orders of two, and let base 10 out of it completely. The Kibibyte? Pfah, it deserves the derogatory name.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[NoOneInParticular]

Correct, the definition of KB, MB and GB was done in the 1960s, and they were completely and moronically wrong!. Who in his right mind starts mixing a binary and a decimal system. 2^10 bytes? That's a stupid quantity to build upon. Almost as stupid as inches, feet and elbows. Good riddens, and thanks to SI to prevent us to go for yet another system that's incompatible with everything else.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[HiThere]

Are you certain that software doesn't think?
Do you have a precise definition of think that
a) covers what people do
b) doesn't cover what any software does
and
c) matches the common usage of the term think

I've got vague and uncertain definitions that might fit, but they've got lots of corner cases that give results that say people don't think. Or software does. And since they're vague, I often can't tell whether something falls into a corner case or not.

You'd be in a stronger position if you had instead asserted that software wasn't conscious, but that basically has the same problems. Most precise definitions of conscious that I'm aware of end up with resolving to "A thermostat that controls a furnace and an air conditioner is conscious." Which doesn't match our intuitive understanding of the term, but that may be because we've never grown up with a consistent definition of conscious. I've even met people who maintain that a dog isn't conscious.

OTOH, it's also true that the GPL doesn't appear to give any rights to the software itself. So you're also right that the original argument wasn't exact. Metaphorically it makes sense, but it's not a precise and rational argument.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[HiThere]

Nitpick time:
If you are going to retain patents on your software, it is not open. Period. End of story.

Well, no. If you own the patent and distribute the code under the GPL, then you are either implicitly (GPL2) or explicitly (GPL3) distributing the right to use the patent in modified derived code. The problem comes if you are only licensing the right to use the patent. Then you may well not have the right to distribute the code under the GPL.

 

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[CarpetShark]

Hate to break it to you, but the GPL is not the be-all end-all of openness

Hate to break it to you, but in de facto terms, it is.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[dlanod]

It all sounds pretty much right but I'd move back the hard drive companies doing this earlier. I remember getting hard drives of several hundred megabytes size and "losing" an appropriate percentage once I looked at the size in an OS. I seem to remember back then they'd even count the MBs as unformatted, because that'd give them even more wiggle room.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[drinkypoo]

An open standard can be implemented by anyone without any restrictions.

The whole point of an open standard in fact is that you want it implemented, for the purposes of interoperability. So, for example, POSIX is an open standard; at least these days, you can get right online and read the damned thing on the official sites. IEEE1394 is not; there is a licensing fee of $0.25/device (IIRC it was higher originally?) to cover patents.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[SETIGuy]

You haven't actually read a commercial license recently, have you?

"You have the right to use this program on one machine using this specific operating system. You may not run this program on a virtual machine. You may not run this program under a debugger. You may not attempt to disassemble this program. You may not run this program under a remote connection. You may not benchmark this program. You may not publish any reviews of this program without approval. You may not run any third party program that accesses any internal APIs contained in this program. You may not run any program which attempts to communicate to this program on any interfaces. You may not attempt to modify this program. We cannot be held responsible if this program kills all of the first born sons of your community."

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[SETIGuy]

Your understanding is quite wrong.... Your options are a) distribute source code with the binary. b) distribute source code to anyone who asks on a medium used for commonly used for software exchange at no more than your marginal cost. c) If you are non-commercial and redistributing a pre-compiled binary, you can just point at the source code at the site where you downloaded the binary.

.

Under option b, the only things that count as common these days would be CD-ROM, DVD, or over the net. So cost would be, cost of a CD blank, cost of a DVD blank, or free (since there are so many free source code hosting sites.)

GPL v2.

1. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
   1. a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
   2. b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
   3. c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

.

After so long how can people still get this wrong.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[syousef]

It depends on what you want to be open. ...

So, "it", is defined by what your primary goals are. I tend to prefer modified BSD/MIT style licenses myself, but the GPL certainly has a place for a lot of development models.

No. GPL is more open than BSD/MIT. Whether or not it is more open does not depend on whether your goal is to make it open.

People like to point out the irony of open licenses being stated in the form of restrictions. What they fail to understand is that the goal of the license isn't too allow ALL use (ie completely unrestricted). The goal is to prevent others from locking up the code so that others can't use it. In other words freedom doesn't mean freedom to do anything you like - it simply means not having your work locked up. In that sense GPL is certainly more free than BSD/MIT because GPL does not allow derivative work to be locked up.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[swillden]

I consider GPL to be more restrictive than most of the commercial licenses I've had to deal with over the years.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

You didn't actually read any of those commercial licenses, did you?

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[swillden]

I'm pretty sure neither you nor the parent post actually know what orthagonal means.

Orthogonal vectors are "perpendicular". More precisely, their dot product is zero. Colloquially, this is mathematical concept is generalized to mean issues which exist on separate, non-interacting and independent axes.

Not knowing what a word means is not the same as disagreeing with the application of the word.

Oh, and please not the correct spelling.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[hairyfeet]

Thank you for proving my point that the pedantic will happily get screwed as long as it aligns with their definitions of something. Question: When was the last time you saw....say a HDD, and it was labeled with ONLY GiB? Hell when was the last time you saw GiB labeled prominently on the box? Answer-NEVER!

Because marketing drones could give a flying wet fart about your numbers system, they just want to lie to as many folks as possible to pump up their numbers. If they could label their 300Gb HDDs as 2Tb in "Wet monkey farts" and get away with it they would do so in a heartbeat. So don't support the ripping off of your fellow man who doesn't understand all that GiB/Gb bullshit just because you want to be pedantic about a numbering system. Send nasty emails demanding that the HDD manufacturers label in ONLY GiB or go back to the old way. Because as it is now all it is is a way to fuck your fellow shoppers and pump up some drone's PPT.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[MikeVx]

All in all, I just continue to use the system correctly, because base 10 does not make sense in the context. I have been known to use the suffix MKB (for Marketing) when the defenders of deception are on the prowl, to stress that the onus is on them to invent a new unit marker. We currently now have two unit markers for the same meaning and no marker exists for the way people wish to mis-state capacities.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[jipn4]

That's completely, utterly false.

Well, no, it's not. The term wasn't in common use, although some groups used it to describe themselves. "Open standards" only became a big marketing tool after "open source" had caught on and customers actually cared about "open anything". And at that point, organizations like MPEG-LA started widely abusing the term to make their costly and proprietary standards more appealing.

'The Open Group' standards for DCE, UNIX and X dates back to the 1980's.

And, lo and behold, they were producing "open standards" in the EU sense, not the MPEG-LA sense.

Open source reference implementations are useful to supplement standards, but they're two different things

Quite right: open source implementations are neither necessary nor sufficient for guaranteeing that a standard is open.

Sun has been trying to take advantage of that confusion by producing an open source implementation of a patent encumbered "standard".

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with a byte being 8 bits - nobody's calling an 8 bit byte a decabit, are they?

The point is, there is no such thing as an SI-byte. If there was, it would probably be 10 bits. But as there isn't, having SI define the size of a kilobyte, megabyte, etc. makes as much sense as having them define other non-SI units, like kilofoot, megayard and so on.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[ChunderDownunder]

When did the GPL *ever* claim to be 'open'? FSF never talks about open source but rather 'free software'.

RMS redefined 'free', others 'open'. Don't confuse the two :)

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Loki_666]

Quote: "Cheerleading the GPL gets you mod points around here..."

Really? Wow, thanks for the tip.

Goooooooo GPL!

Can i have my mod points now?

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[ByOhTek]

So, basically it comes down to who's definition of open you want to allow.

I am simply allowing for both definitions, and not assuming that I am always right.

Try it some time, accepting that other people can have valid opinions, it makes the world easier to deal with. Admittedly you have to deflate your ego a bit, and that does hurt initially, but trust me, it's worth it.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Osvaldo Doederlein]

Who in his right mind starts mixing a binary and a decimal system. 2^10 bytes?

Very likely, a hardware engineer or a programmer who had to deal with low-level system realities like memory block sizes being always powers of two. You must manipulate memory (and other HW things) in blocks which sizes match physical packaging, to avoid inefficiencies from alignment, memory hierarchies, etc.

And this is reality up to current day. Please come back whining for decimal system when you're using, say, a monitor with 1500x1000 resolution, or a net connection of 10.000.000 bps.

I for one, will continue using Kb = 1024 etc., these politically correct labels like KiB are for idiots.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[cyphercell]

Possibly, the only commercial licenses he deals with are the open ones (bsd, apache, etc).

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TeknoHog]

The three options are available to those who use the binary -- i.e. those bound by the GPL to this particular software. Thus my earlier understanding is quite valid, I was leaving out the details on purpose.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[hairyfeet]

Which is why I think we should adopt a new system for point out how stupid this "MiB" crap is and hopefully get it killed by fire, which is the only way to be sure. So from now on, when someone starts bring up this "KiB, MiB," BS, we should correct them with "WMF", which stands for "wet marketing farts", which of course is what all this "Gb in computer language doesn't actually mean what the OS or anything else says it means" BS got started by anyway.

That way when some pedantic starts spewing out the marketing speak (and notice nobody else spews that crap. When was the last time you bought a "1000" Mb RAM stick?) then we will have a nice way of pointing out they are just falling for marketing drone speak and will hopefully help to slowly but surely kill that crap. After all I'm sure the HDD manufacturers won't like seeing on all their forums and discussion boards folks talking about how all their drives are sold in "WMF" format, now will they? The "race to 1 gigabyte" is long over. It is time to put this marketing crap to bed people!

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[denmarkw00t]

Not to nitpick - ok, so its nitpicking, but under b), the costs for CD/DVD would be: the cost of the CD/DVD, the cost of the case or sleeve (even sleeves aren't free!), the cost of shipping and the "labor" of opening the iso or adding the files and hitting the Burn button. Over the net, you could theoretically charge at least for the bandwidth used to upload said file to a free project hosting site, plus the time used selecting the file(s) and registering an account with *Forge, etc. Nitpicking, but $7 > $2.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

Licences 'compatible' with the GPL are ones where covered code can be imported into GPL projects with no regard to whether GPL-covered code can be imported into them. Personally I consider GNU/compatibility to be just one more nail in their list of disingenous definitions.

Interestingly enough the example you give of BSD is one of the numerous licenses which allows code to be imported into the GPL but the GPL does not allow alterations to it to be imported back.

GPL is not the *only* open license

[Anonymous Coward]

And being incompatible with the GPL doesn't mean something isn't open.

Re:GPL is not the *only* open license

[Bert64]

No, but being patent encumbered does unless the patent holder declares the patent is free for anyone to implement under any terms they wish (ie they use the patent totally defensively and agree never to initiate any legal action against anyone over it).

Re:GPL is not the *only* open license

[donscarletti]

And being incompatible with the GPL doesn't mean something isn't open.

I think a more reasonable thing to say is "being compatible with the GPL doesn't mean something is open". However, those two statements aren't quite the same. Being open means that it should be compatible with pretty much anything, including the GPL. If a standard had a clause making it incompatible with all commercial software, or making it only compatible with GPLed software it wouldn't be open either for the exact same reason.

Re:GPL is not the *only* open license

[Tubal-Cain]

Would there be any legal repercussions if they don't keep their word?

Re:GPL is not the *only* open license

[HiThere]

Actually the promise can be a lot more restrictive than that. They could merely declare that the patent is free for anyone implementing code descendant from their code. This would suffice for the GPL license (either GPL2 or GPL3) providing that the promise was legally binding on the owner of the patent. Distribution of software containing that patent under either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3 would qualify as a legally binding promise. (GPLv3 is more explicit than GPLv2, but GPLv2 is still quite clear.)

Caution: IANAL

Ya gotta love Microsoft

[Vinegar Joe]

They'll never miss a chance to try and bend you over the dining room table.

Re:Ya gotta love Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

And they always complain about the ruined carpet when they're done.

Re:Ya gotta love Microsoft

[frank_adrian314159]

Yeah... and if they can't do that, they'll hump your leg. Bastards.

Re:Ya gotta love Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they'll hump chairs

Re:Ya gotta love Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya gotta love most software companies

They'll never miss a chance to try and bend you over the dining room table.

That above edit seems a bit more appropriate. MS, Apple, Adobe, Symantec, Red Hat, Oracle, I can think of a lot of non-exceptions to this rule, and so far, not serious exceptions.

Now who's redefining "open"?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.

Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[Darkness404]

Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.

Nope, OSI defines open source software as software that:

A. Free Redistribution
B. Includes Source
C. Allow Derived Works

And a lot of other stuff. See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php for more info.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[Richard_at_work]

The OSI are not a recognised standard body or industry authority - they are little more than recognised banner wavers and supporters of open source but they carry essentially no weight. Their definition is all very well and good, but its not *the* definition.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[iamhigh]

Nope, OSI defines open source software as software that:

Did you mean Open Systems Interconnection? Or International Organization for Standardization? Nope, you meant the Open Source Initiative? Surely they don't have an agenda!

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[MBGMorden]

OSI's definition isn't necessarily the gold standard either. The GPL, BSD, and other licenses, as well as the whole concept of "open source" was around long before OSI existed.

I have always felt, and continue to do so, that "open source" merely indicates that the source code for a product is available. There are a ton of times where that's all that I wanted. I'd kill to have the source to some of my vendor purchased apps so I could fix some long standing bugs and send the patches back to them. Creating/distributing a derived work, or redistributing the code is not a priority in that case. Access to the code is.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[tonyreadsnews]

I thought the same thing. Only after did I realize the word shift in the summary:
Also, Matusow didn't say they want all open standards to be able to include RAND, just that he considers some RAND standards as open to him. The article writer even seems to agree with most of his points, and then turns a 360 and brings up the OOXML to bash on them a bit.
On the side of openness, I think the article writer misunderstood Matusow's main point about patents and standards, which is that if a patentable idea could be used in more then one way (his two examples were protocols and an aphrodisiac) that the owner should be able to grant use of the patent for a protocol standard, but should not be required to give up rights to license separately use as an aphrodisiac. Doing so might make the contributor less likely to contribute, which make sense because if that were required, the cost of the contribution might outweigh the benefit.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[frank_adrian314159]

... his two examples were protocols and an aphrodisiac...

Out of touch with reality much? The day a protocol will be an aphrodisiac is the day Hell freezes over, monkeys fly out my butt, and Slashdot readers get laid.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[teg]

Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.

There are plenty of commercial products where you can have the source... but no other rights, and having to sign NDAs etc.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[guruevi]

Fixing a bug by changing the source code and then recompiling it is creating a derivative work. When you have access to the source code, it doesn't always mean you are allowed to make a 'better' version of it. A few years ago, we had access to the Windows (NT/2000) source code but it's still not legal for me to fix their bugs and then install it on my computer.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[clone53421]

No kidding. Letting Microsoft define "open" is like a bunch of sheep letting the wolf define "vegetarian".

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always felt, and continue to do so, that "open source" merely indicates that the source code for a product is available.

I don't think you really mean that...

I'd kill to have the source to some of my vendor purchased apps so I could fix some long standing bugs and send the patches back to them.

... because patching third-party software yourself already implies
1 - the freedom to modify said source, even if it is only for private use
2 - the freedom to recompile the source, modified with your patches
3 - the freedom to publish your changes, even if you only publish them to the vendor

Creating/distributing a derived work, or redistributing the code is not a priority in that case. Access to the code is.

There is a very fine line between a fix and a derived work. And I suspect that freedom 2) above would classify as a "derived work" already.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[MobyDisk]

Ironically, the article is about how Microsoft is redefining a term to meet their needs. Yet somehow it is okay for OSI to define what "open source" means. Their definition is a good one, but not the only valid one.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[swillden]

Their definition is all very well and good, but its not *the* definition.

What is *the* definition?

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Well, weren't the old unices distributed in source form so it was possible to fix bugs in your own system without vendor intervention. Those were certainly not open systems though.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[Chris Burke]

Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.

No it doesn't. Even the weakest definition of Open Source includes the ability to modify said software and distribute the result. Being able to just look at source is what that "Shared Source" bullshit MS tried to pull however many years ago was, and nobody was fooled.

And yeah, the GPL or OSI may not define "open", but if you definition of "open" allows for patents with restrictive and non-royalty-free licensing terms, then your definition sucks balls.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[Irontail]

Nope, you meant the Open Source Initiative? Surely they don't have an agenda!

Because promoting open source is such a nefarious agenda...

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[dhTardis]

Fixing a bug by changing the source code and then recompiling it is creating a derivative work. [...] A few years ago, we had access to the Windows (NT/2000) source code but it's still not legal for me to fix their bugs and then install it on my computer.

Fortunately, the utility of doing what you want with (and within) your own computing equipment has been recognized. (This is no more legal advice than your comment was, of course.)

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[gdshaw]

The concept of "open source" was indeed around long before OSI existed, but it was rarely if ever called "open source" until the OSI and their associates started to popularise the term. For this reason alone I would argue that the OSD can and should be considered authoritative.

(Ironically, the reason for promoting 'open source' as a label is that 'free software' was thought to be ambiguous.)

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[HiThere]

Yeah, I wasn't very happy when they did that. But at the time there wasn't MUCH competition for the use of the term. Yeah, there was some, but not much. And the definition that they chose was pretty much in line with the most common usage.

Now compare this to what MS is doing. There is currently a lot of use of the term, and their definition is a gross perversion of all existing usage (well, all of which I am aware).

I was a bit miffed at OSI. The only reason that I'm not quite angry with MS over this, is because I'm far angrier with them over other abuses.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes an industry authority "recognized"?
Is it simply a matter of the biggest players in an industry getting together and deciding that they should be the banner wavers of their own interests?
Or should it be measured by who takes the authority seriously?
Not a bad idea, actually. Try checking who has asked to have their open source licenses OSI certified - that should be a sign of who thinks of them as an authority.
(From memory, it includes at least Microsoft, IBM, Real Networks and Sun).
I guess OSI really is an industry authority.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[Richard_at_work]

Thats the point - there isn't one. Whether there should be one is another question.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[swillden]

Thats the point - there isn't one. Whether there should be one is another question.

So what's your answer to that question?

From the...

[Daemonax]

From the gpl-isn't-really-open-either-ya-know dept.

What is up with that? The majority of people that go around saying this about the GPL complain that you can't include the GPL in proprietary software or other unfortunate obscure issues. The GPL is designed to keep software licensed under it Free (or open if you prefer). Sure sometimes that causes unfortunate problems with other Free Software licenses, but while there are those that would like to take away the freedom that users and developers get with the GPL, it's a cost I'm happy with.

Re:From the...

[TheRaven64]

The majority of people that go around saying this about the GPL complain that you can't include the GPL in proprietary software or other unfortunate obscure issues

No, a lot of us complain that we can't include GPL'd code in projects incorporating code with other (FSF-designated Free Software, OSI-approved) open source licenses like the ASL, APSL, CDDL, and so on. And that the conditions of the GPL make it trivial for someone to accidentally infringe (compile some GPL'd software that's only available in source form, give a copy to your friend, forget to include an offer in writing to provide the source - oops, you've just infringed the GPL). We also object to the banner-waving it's-not-really-free-unless-it's-GPL'd attitude that we get from a lot of GPL advocates, the most vocal of whom haven't read the GPL and wouldn't get more than half marks on the FSF's GPL quiz.

Re:From the...

[msuarezalvarez]

And that the conditions of the GPL make it trivial for someone to accidentally infringe (compile some GPL'd software that's only available in source form, give a copy to your friend, forget to include an offer in writing to provide the source - oops, you've just infringed the GPL).

Can't you really see that this can happen in exactly the same way with *all* licenses?

Re:From the...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with it is, freedom is (as it can be most generally stated) lack of restriction. Public domain and BSD/MIT/ISC licenses have the fewest restrictions, thus are the most free. GPL has many restrictions, but fewer than EULA's. The most annoying part for me at least is how GPL restricts in the name of preserving freedom. It's hypocrisy.

It's not about whether the GPL does what it was designed to, or how much you care about the restrictions it provides. If we all went with the "It's free enough for me because it doesn't prevent me from doing what I want" rule, most users should be fine with EULA's. And reality confirms this. "Free enough" is not "freedom".

The article author appears to be using a hypocrite as a standard. Doing that disturbs people with standards very deeply. The hypocrisy of GPL bothers many of us more than the hypocrisy of Microsoft because the GPL is closer to us. Distant hypocrisy is humorous, close hypocrisy is infuriating. As should be no surprise, people don't laugh very much when they're mad. This is why you get such a flood of angry "gpl-isn't-really-open-either-ya-know" responses.

You guys would bitch if

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs. Seriously, cut them some slack. They're making an effort here.

 

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Vinegar Joe]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.

Knowing Microsoft, the free blowjobs would come with a free dose of the clap.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Gee, thanks for ruining my day man. When I read your post, I immediately pictured Steve Balmers on his knees undoing my belt. Eew.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Nerdfest]

Intentionally tying patent encumbered software into open source would be one of the worst things you could do. The patent system in the US seems exceptionally broken, and this at best would start dragging open source companies into courts to define 'reasonable' on a case by case basis. It would get rid of the 'free' part of FOSS in two ways, not just one.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[stonefoz]

And, for 29.95 they'll sell you the penicillin, $100 for penicillin that works, and 200 for "Penicillin Ultimate Edition"

Re:You guys would bitch if

[sorak]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs. Seriously, cut them some slack. They're making an effort here.

If they were giving out free blowjobs, they would be an "express edition", and you would have to shell out another $500 to get a satisfying product.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[jimicus]

And even if you go for the $200 "ultimate edition", there's still a 5% chance that it won't do any good and Microsoft's advice would be "shoot yourself, reincarnate and try again".

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Anonymous Coward]

If the whore still has teeth, yes. I don't trust anything Microsoft, that still has teeth, near my private parts.

If the whore does not have teeth it is just the usual Microsoft cheap trick in which case I am not interested. I do have standards.

I found that this philosophy also translates really well to my computing needs.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[IGnatius T Foobar]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.

I'm sure they'd fail at that too. In fact, it might be the first time in history that they didn't suck.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.

Well... I wouldn't risk W32.Treponema.pallidum bundled with this service.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the joke's on them. I already have the clap!

Re:You guys would bitch if

[DoofusOfDeath]

You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.

Knowing Microsoft, the free blowjobs would come with a free dose of the clap.

I've told me friends to wait for Microsoft Blowjob 1.1.

You just get too many bugs with the first edition.

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I have to accept a EULA before the free dose?

Re:You guys would bitch if

[chaim79]

"In that case you would start the whole process over again."
"How do you do that?"
"One traditionally starts by being born."
(Thud!, by Terry Pratchett)

Re:You guys would bitch if

[Anonymous Coward]

What a coincidence! He was imagining the same thing about you!

Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

How is this surprising? TFA explains it best:

The idea behind truly open standards is to create a level playing field so that everyone can compete on an equal and fair basis. The benefits are obvious: it ensures a true Darwinian selection process is possible

Microsoft, just like tha *AAs, find themselves in the same position as the dinosaurs after the comet strike winter: their surroundings (markets) are changing and they are unable to adapt. So they try to adapt their environment to themselves. In the case of companies, this is done by "educating" (think "don't copy that floppy"), threatening and cajoling their customers. But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[turbidostato]

"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."

Don't be so sure: dinos didn't have corporate lawyers.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[characterZer0]

Microsoft are adapting quite well. They are making a ton of money by screwing everybody else.

They may not have many friends, but they are surviving.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[thereimns]

"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."

Everlasting fame and the undying love of children everywhere?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[tonyreadsnews]

Feel free to continue bashing Microsoft for whatever reason, but the quote you took was not from Microsoft, but an article writer writing about a blog post made here.

in which Matusow does nothing of the sort of "educating" you mention.

Instead he points out the difference between what he meant by 'balance' and by what Rick Jelliffe meant by 'balance'.

Hint:
Rick meant balance on standards committee's representation
Matusow meant balance in demands from contributors to standards.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, software juggernaut microsoft goes the way of the Dinosaurs because their products are proprietary ... tell that to the millions of SysAdmins who are scrambling to patch their copies of BIND9 against this new wave of DoS attacks. Microsoft can do whatever it wants and I would still pin the chance of them every going under as "entirely unlikely". Also, if you're suggesting that dinosaurs all went exctinct take a good hard look at a chicken and tell me where you think it came from. If you ask me I think proprietary and closed source is just as good as free-to-use open source simply because diversity is king and always has been. I think Darwin would agree.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[RoccamOccam]

But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.

Evolve into birds?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[SandFrog]

"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."
They'll appear in a coloring book being ridden by Jesus?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[migla]

You need corporate lawyers now to evolve into birds?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Yvanhoe]

You can win a trial against the winter. But it usually doesn't comply.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Anonymous Coward]

But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.

Evolve and become chickens?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[R2.0]

"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."

They'll turn into birds?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Anonymous Coward]

But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.

Evolve into pidgeons that crap on your car?

Or miss a big boat and drown in a flood?

Depending on what side of the atlantic ocean you live on this sort of ambiguous talk can mean either.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Anonymous Coward]

It helps if you have vultures to model yourself after?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[r_jensen11]

"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."

Don't be so sure: dinos didn't have corporate lawyers.

SCO did, though

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[sjames]

Yes. Someone's sure to have patented the genes that produce feathers by now.

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[shadowmage36]

'They'll appear in a coloring book being ridden by Jesus?'
Oh, shit! Somebody just summoned Raptor Jesus!!!
RUN AWAY!!!

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think that is where sharks came from? I'm thinking there is a reason behind the professional courtesy....

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Locklin]

"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."

Don't be so sure: dinos didn't have corporate lawyers.

Then why are corporate lawyers so often referred to with certain reptilian species names?

Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Anonymous Coward]

But no place in the modern world except as skeletons in museums...

Reasonable ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate entities are not at all alike Human entities, and therefore its very likely that the definitions of "reasonable" that are used by both are quite incompatible.

Giving MS track-record that chance is probably near a 100% ...

I will be the first to defend MS

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be the first one to defend MS and their right to make money on the product they work so hard on. It is also true that the GPL is not the only licence you will ever need. But I really can only think of one thing that open can mean, if MS wants to do open source I welcome it but if want to move into the neighborhood and ask that the rules change because they are here now, I find that just plain silly.

It reminds me of the vacationers that have a summer house on the lake and can't figure out why the laws are not the same here as they are in the big city. If you want to move in please do but don't ask us to change to meet just because you are here now.

Re:I will be the first to defend MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who modded this as flamebait needs a slap on the wrists and their mod points taken away. Looks like reading comprehension is hard to come by these days.

Re:I will be the first to defend MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be helped. Any idiot can get mod points. Just post a few Pro-Linux comments, receive positive moderation, then wait to collect your points. It's that simple and it's really why the mod system is a terrible joke.

Re:I will be the first to defend MS

[LingNoi]

Indeed. In fact wouldn't this even be incompatible with their own MSPL open source licenses which if I am not mistaken have patent clauses in to prevent patent infringement lawsuits.

Sounds familiar

[CopaceticOpus]

Microsoft reminds me of the RIAA here, whining about the need to prop up their business model. Their license to print money is in danger, as the online world is moving on.

losing contracts

[stine2469]

Does this have anything to do with losing the ability to get government contracts because of FOSS requirements? Remember the stink ?last year? when M$ got their proprietary document format declared a standard so they could bid on contracts that required open document standards? They must have another contract coming up for renewal.

Re:losing contracts

[foniksonik]

This is the issue precisely - 100%.

Various governments are specifying that vendors support Open Standards so that they are not locked in to vendors. Governments want a solution not a provider. Future proof, vendor neutral, interoperable with other solutions, unencumbered by intellectual property limitations.

Re:losing contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably trying to push Silverlight again since it hasn't gained much traction...

They're still at this?

[rnturn]

Sometime back in the late '80s, Digital Review (or a similar industry newletter) ran an article in which Bill Gates was quoted as saying something to the effect that Microsoft's operating system was an "open system" because you could buy a computer from a large number of vendors that it would run on. (So long as you were talking about computers based on Intel chips, I suppose he could could sort of get away with saying that, as self-serving as it was.) Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys.

Re:They're still at this?

[turbidostato]

"Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys."

Gates claiming whatever he feels will strengh his bussiness is an old story (not that any other company owner wouldn't do the same): remember when Gates was strongly against patents? He didn't own a large patent portfolio back then.

Re:They're still at this?

[Andr T.]

Yeah, that makes things so easy!

1 - Define 'open' as 'made by your freaking money-grabbing company'

2 - Impose your definition to everyone else

3 - Profit!!!

Re:They're still at this?

[Richard_at_work]

Windows NT was available for Alpha, PPC and MIPS as well as Intel chips. Not sure if that ties up with your alleged quote, but its still a nice example.

Re:They're still at this?

[larry bagina]

Fun fact of the day: Open has multiple meanings. Tomorrow's fun fact: Free has multiple meanings.

Re:They're still at this?

[dkleinsc]

This latest effort starts with the rise of open source software, to the point where the lay public often thinks of open source software as a Good Thing (thanks in particular to Mozilla's work, which is probably the most consumer-visible OSS project out there). This leads to such convoluted efforts as Office Open XML, which conveniently sounds like a format that just might have come out of, say, the OpenOffice project.

Re:They're still at this?

[TheRaven64]

Terms change. OpenVMS was released in 1991, the same year as Linux 0.1. The Open prefix was used to indicate that it complied with the POSIX standard, and had nothing to do with open source. The POSIX standard was open in that anyone could implement it, but copies of it were quite expensive. Now, when you see a piece of software with Open in its name, you probably assume it's open source, but 20 years ago no one even knew what this term meant. Back then, an open standard just meant one that wasn't controlled by a single company - you still might have to pay money to obtain the standard and more if you wanted to implement it. If you want to be unambiguous, say 'open, royalty-free, standard' and then it's clear what you mean.

Re:They're still at this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys.

I don't see how anyone can claim that the OS's (and programs) produced by Microsoft are not "open". Heck, microsoft-based zombies offer the highest amount of compute cycles for free, to everyone around the world!

Re:They're still at this?

[Qubit]

This leads to such convoluted efforts as Office Open XML, which conveniently sounds like a format that just might have come out of, say, the OpenOffice project.

It's a bit off topic, but I'm still unclear as to how Microsoft wasn't taken to task for using the OOXML name given that OOo had already existed with an original file format called OpenOffice XML. I've personally corrected several people in person, in print, and online -- even on sites of relative technological aptitude such as /. -- for confusing the file formats and the OOo product. Is there just not enough of a legal protection against use of confusingly-similar product names?

Re:They're still at this?

[Stu Charlton]

Back in those days, "open systems" was coined by UNIX vendors for the same reason - you didn't need to buy IBM hardware to run software, you could run software, and it was arguably portable. BillG took the same term and applied it to Windows in a different sort of way - if you ran Windows, you could still fire your hardware vendor and swap in a new one.

It was a bigger deal than one might imagine in today's world of virtual machines. People couldn't switch off of IBM despite tens of millions of $$ going to them for mainframes. The same argument applied to "software platform" was why Java took off in the 90's - that way you could use Linux, Windows, or UNIX and it wouldn't matter (for server software, anyway, for the most part - GUI was more of a failure).

Re:They're still at this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometime back in the late '80s, Digital Review (or a similar industry newletter) ran an article in which Bill Gates was quoted as saying something to the effect that Microsoft's operating system was an "open system" because you could buy a computer from a large number of vendors that it would run on. (So long as you were talking about computers based on Intel chips, I suppose he could could sort of get away with saying that, as self-serving as it was.) Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys.

Back in the '80s, the fact that the PC (which Microsoft wrote operating systems for) was an open system that could be copied and extended by different manufacturers was a big deal. Back then all the competitors were like Apple is today -- locked down and tightly controlled. We've sort of forgotten that because these days PCs (or rather their successors) are so ubiquitous. In the '80s, why didn't Microsoft care about whether their definition of "open" matched the GPL? Well, GPL version 1 wasn't even published until 1989, so it would have been kinda hard for Microsoft to make sure their usage of the word "open" matched with it before it even existed.

Re:They're still at this?

[jgiltner]

Actually MS did NOT write the OS for the PC back in the 80's. Bill G. purchased a OS (86-DOS, a.k.a.QDOS) for the PC back then and renamed it. Typically people don't consider hardware open, they consider software open and MS did not own the hardware.

Re:They're still at this?

[rnturn]

"Windows NT was available for Alpha, PPC and MIPS as well as Intel chips."

The article I was referring to was prior to NT's birth. If memory serves it may have even predated Windows 3.x. I distinctly remember NT when it was running at some trade show on the latest (at the time) MIPS chip and I actually got rather interested in it at the time. Probably because it was supposedly based on VMS ideas Cutler brought to MS from DEC. Didn't take long for MS to screw those up, though, and my interest waned rather quickly.

Re:They're still at this?

[rnturn]

``In the '80s, why didn't Microsoft care about whether their definition of "open" matched the GPL?''

Whoa... Nothing I wrote even implied that Microsoft's ridiculous claim had anything to do with the GPL. My point was that their claim had little to do with the concept of openness.

At that time, when one talked about "open" in the context of computer systems, one was generally talking about "open systems" (mostly whether a system was POSIX compliant) or the Open Group (a group of computer and OS vendors who sold hardware + operating systems that were POSIX compliant). These were not necessarily UNIX. IIRC, VMS was the first OS to be fully POSIX compliant. (Maybe the only non-UNIX OS to do that though some odd OS like Pick might have pulled it off.)

The Open Group would have had little to nothing to do with the GPL. The OSes they were selling were as closed source as could be and I'd wager that few if any members of the Open Group would have given more than a nanosecond's consideration to making their OSes available under the GPL. (Anyone know when the Open Group disbanded? I'm sure they still had a few members when the GPL was born even though I still can't imagine them wanting to give the GPL a serious look.)

Developing for an open system in those days was rather like writing software meant to be installed from sources today. Of course, it would have been all done in-house and only the binaries sold. If a vendor had enough inquiries about whether their nifty software ran on hardware X running POSIX-compliant OS Y, a vendor merely had to invest in the hardware needed to compile the software and build packages for sale. At least that was the theory. The death of the proprietary hardware/OS vendor had already begun in the face of the onslaught of the PC and the dream of that sort of "open system" was doomed.

Re:They're still at this?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that was the only version of the OS they ever shipped.

balanced in favour of microsoft

[hiddenharmony]

Someone ask these idiots when you are willing to allow the usage without royalty why on this earth you want a patent on it ? Why cant we modify the law to ensure that any patented technology can be used without royalty when it becomes part of an open standard ? Infact the US patent law allows government to use any technology without paying patent fees to anyone, so why cant the same be applied to open standards which are going to be useful for a wider number of humans on this earth ? This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.

Re:balanced in favour of microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Let's disregard the thousands of man hours put into making software, and give it all away for nothing to everyone. It's not like developers need to be paid for their work, nor can we allow them to take any credit for it. It's not like there's an industry based around selling software to people or anything.

Whoops, forgot my sarcasm. Stop living in a fucking fairytale.

Re:balanced in favour of microsoft

[Attila Dimedici]

This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.

No, this is the "Extend" phase. If they can get people to accept patent encumbered software as "open", then they can move into the Exterminate phase.

Re:balanced in favour of microsoft

[tonyreadsnews]

Someone ask these idiots when you are willing to allow the usage without royalty why on this earth you want a patent on it

When that patent can be used in more then one application. A patent holder may grant all uses of a patent for one application (say a protocol standard) but not for another application. That is actually the point made in Matusow's blog post and is missed by the article.

Re:balanced in favour of microsoft

[Rockoon]

The first reason to patent something you've developed is defense. If you don't stake your claim, someone else might. If an opportunity comes later on to sue somebody profitably, thats all good too. Defense is the primary concern.

Microsoft vs TomTom ended up as rights swap, with protections to both parties on all the explicitely named patents in both the suit and countersuit. The agreement also makes any litigation between the two parties verboten for 5 years. Both clearly feel that they will be in a better baregaining position at that time. Thats if they dont come to a more permanent agreement sooner. They are both basically juggling for position prior to a patent swap.

Open is the wrong word

[Benanov]

The GPL isn't "open" and never claimed to be.

Re:Open is the wrong word

[Anonymous Coward]

It's open source...

Re:Open is the wrong word

[91degrees]

By design, it's "free software". The FSF is very clear on the matter.

Re:Open is the wrong word

[morcego]

I find this odd, but my view is the exact opposite. As far as I can see, the GPL IS open, but not free.

Didn't we have a discussion about this a few days ago ?

Re:Open is the wrong word

[91degrees]

I've always seen freedom as a relative thing rather than a declaration "this is free/this is not free". GPL is free in that you can modify it and share it but not free in that the licence does impose limitations on this freedom.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be sighing at Microsoft. They are the ones that keep putting chalk on the tip.

Is anyone suprised?

[Zantac69]

This is the company that basically redefined an "operating system" to no longer just mean the basic power plant that manages the computer's operations...the "operating system" now takes care of antivirus/firewall, digital media, as well as internet browsing and more.

Almost like the MCP in Tron - may Ram R.I.P. (Rest in Pixels)

Re:Is anyone suprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

All things I want in my operating system because I generally don't want to go hunting for that stuff myself. Any OS that doesn't have built-in tools to prevent virus and attacks is a poor one, or handle digital media content, or browse the web. All of those things are essential.

The only thing I would have a problem with is if the OS made it impossible for legitimate third-party tools to work. An OS with a browser/AV/firewall/media player? Should be the rule. And given what I can find on the latest downloads of every OS it seems to be the case for most of the common ones.

Re:Is anyone suprised?

[Blakey Rat]

This is the company that basically redefined an "operating system" to no longer just mean the basic power plant that manages the computer's operations...the "operating system" now takes care of antivirus/firewall, digital media, as well as internet browsing and more.

And I'm supposed to feel-- what? Upset? Angry?-- over that?

Of course, since Apple added a media player to their OS first (Quicktime 1.0), and since Apple added a firewall to their OS first, you're mostly griping about Apple and not Microsoft. But this is Slashdot, so whatever.

GPL is great, but not for everyone.

[judolphin]

The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.

Exactly. I love the idea of GPL and am glad it exists. I use GPL software whenever possible. This post however, is not about the merits of GPL, but to drive home this point: it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to make a living by relying on GPL software. Finding a "balance" between the GPL model and complete closure is something worth pursuing. It's not like GPL couldn't still be used by those who wanted to use it.

The GPL is simply not for every developer. It does not allow for trade sectrets, and trade secrets are legally protected for a legitimate reason: the opportunity to be rewarded for innovation. Without it, there would be *less* incentive to invent and innovate.

Clearly, some are willing to invent and develop technology without this protection, but many such as Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, the average person with a Computer Science degree, will demand some of this protection when they really want to earn a living from their software.

As someone who's worked for software companies, it's hard to imagine those companies GPLing their products, and easy to imagine the company losing half its profits or going under altogether if any company with an IT department could legally recompile the source code and use the software without payment.

After all, companies do have the right to act in their own self-interest, even if you feel they are misguided.

Re:GPL is great, but not for everyone.

[Hausenwulf]

But we aren't talking about products here. We are talking about standards. Everyone should be able to implement a standard without having to pay someone.

Re:GPL is great, but not for everyone.

[swillden]

As someone who's worked for software companies, it's hard to imagine those companies GPLing their products, and easy to imagine the company losing half its profits or going under altogether if any company with an IT department could legally recompile the source code and use the software without payment.

You may be interested in what IBM is doing with its new Rational Team Concert suite. All of the software is open source commercial software. That means that the source is fully open, in that you can go download it right now and build it yourself, but if you want to use it legally you have to buy a license.

Basically, they're betting that company IT departments will not recompile the source code and use it without payment.

"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[dwheeler]

It's true that "GPL" is not the same as "open". But a good test for openness of a standard is "can you implement it using the GPL?". In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close. And increasingly, major market niches have an open source software implementation as the #1 or #2 implementation. A standard that locks out major implementations cannot possibly be an open standard. The whole point of a software patent is the power to exclude implementation (without paying royalties, etc.), while the whole point of a standard is to allow arbitrary use - they are fundamentally incompatible. Digistan has a more reasonable definition of open standard - and why you would want one.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[OzPeter]

But I cannot use external GPL'ed software in my product and NOT release that same code. So if wanted to not release the code then I cannot implement my product using GPL'ed code. So by your standards GPL is not an open standard. However I don't have a problem if I use BSD'ed code.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong that something Opened can't have patent associated with it, because most ISO, ANSI and other standards do. For example. The MPEG 4 standard is all about documenting this group of patents.

Open Standards just means that cards are on the table: the specs and the list of patents that go with it are published. Open, the company that owns the patents licenses them for free.

Whether someone can code it with GPL has nothing to with whether something is an acceptable ISO, EMCA or ANSI standard, the FSF isn't an open standard authority.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a moment... if you have to open up your code that's somehow less open than if you are allowed to leave your code closed?!

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[DoofusOfDeath]

In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close.

You're somewhat begging the question:

1. The GPL is an "open" software license.
2. So if a program is compatible with GPL, the program is "open".

But you don't explain why the GPL's definition of "open" is the one we should accept. So I think you're begging the question regarding what "open" means.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[IBBoard]

You might want to check the difference between "can" and "want". In that example you can release it by opening your code up as well, you just don't want to ;)

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Lostlander]

This argument in my mind is the equivalent of (to use a car analogy) I want you to share your knowledge on how to build an engine. But I won't share any of my information on how to build a car. This way I can build my car using your engine designs and make money without ever contributing back.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[domatic]

You can still study the GPLed code and re-implement what it does as BSD code. However "ability to implement as GPL in the first place" is a better litmus test of openness as the GPL disallows redistribution if other legal encumbrances such as patents are in play. A given technique could require a $200 patent royalty payment per install but you could still otherwise redistribute under BSD terms. Note well I'm not talking about reusing either BSD or GPL code. As the GP was, I'm talking about being able to implement a given technique AND being able to comply with the GPL's terms of downstream openness.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Anonymous Coward]

A software license is not a standard? What the hell are you talking about?

The post you replied to just used GPL-implementability as a definition of open, he wasn't trying to require GPL implementations of all standards...

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing licenses and standards. The GPL isn't a standard, neither open nor anything else.
And an open standard can be implemented both in propriety and open source software.

Open standard only means the standard isn't encumbered by patents, which has nothing to do with the license of a specific implementation.
The GP said it best: "In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard."
Because by definition an open standard can be implemented by anyone in any piece of software with no restrictions.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Man Eating Duck]

You're somewhat begging the question:

+1: using "Begging the question" correctly :)
On a side note, it does seem to me that Microsoft defines "open" differently then the GPL in that they would like to be able to use patented code in open standards, and presumably be able to charge for licenses. The GPL allows patents, but imposes a requirement that a free and perpetual licence for the patent be granted:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Blakey Rat]

In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close.

Software written for other Linux and OS X CANNOT be worthwhile. Why? That's because Windows is by far the most popular open source operating system; nothing else even comes close.

(Seriously, of all the places to argue that "popular = best", you picked Slashdot!?)

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah and look how fucking WELL THAT WORKS!

Re:"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[Svartalf]

Software written for other Linux and OS X CANNOT be worthwhile. Why? That's because Windows is by far the most popular open source operating system; nothing else even comes close.

I can't imagine how hard it was to post that with a straight face... :-D

"open" is just a word and doesn't imply a license

[Anonymous Coward]

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -Andrew S. Tanenbaum (author of Minix)

Honestly, how did this make it to the front page of Slashdot? GPL sucks anyway, who cares if it's incompatible? To anyone considering developing a project under the GPL license ... don't. Opt instead of a license that allows you to retain some of your rights. You can always give away the source to your product for free later if you choose a better license. The GPL userbase is just as rabid, vicious and power hungery as Microsoft's IP lawyers. You would be wise to avoid both entirely if at all possible.

So.... woah

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words they just wanna, "stick it in, but only a little bit".

Let's redefine "free" to mean "less than $10"

[lcrocker]

Seems "reasonable and non-discriminatory" to me.

Re:Let's redefine "free" to mean "less than $10"

[selven]

Why should only the people who use your product have to pay for it?

Now THAT's reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Open standards != open source

[RomulusNR]

Open standards and open source are two completely different things and always has been.

Open Source means allowing people to see how programs work and be free to change them as they see fit and promote sharing and interoperability.

Open Standards means allowing software companies to ignore standards and change them as they see fit in order to generate greater lock-in (under the guise of competitiveness). See also: MS Visual Java.

Re:Open standards != open source

[sdiz]

really? X11 / POSIX and their friends was considered "open standard".

Re:Open standards != open source

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are patents over the open standard and this patents are only royalty free to any implementation of the standard that comply to some tests, then this patents can be used to prevent anyone to ignore the standard in their implementation.

Re:Open standards != open source

[Svartalf]

Excuse me...

1) Java wasn't an open standard at that time.
2) MS, if you'll remember, got to pay a settlement to Sun over it.
3) MS, if you'll remember, pulled said play at that game when they got called on it.
4) It doesn't lead that Open Standards will mean what you claim it will- we have tons of open standards (such as the one that defines nuts, bolts, screws, etc. and we don't have that sort of thing going on.

No, the two terms don't equate to each other. But what you're claiming is equally fallacious.

Tell you what, then

[Anonymous Coward]

If the patent can be freely coded into a BSD license and can be operated FULLY under the BSD license, that is open.

Remember: BSD code can be included in GPL code and if you cannot implement in BSD and operate under the BSD which allows the code to be used for ANY purpose (even closing the source), then it isn't BSD compatible either.

Oh yes you can!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still make your product. Just don't sell or give it to someone else unless.

Or you can buy a license (same way you get to include Microsoft code in your application: try skipping on paying a license and sell your code with their code in it that needs a license...).

FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[AliasMarlowe]

Some GPL software is patent encumbered. IBM, for example, donated some of their patents for Open Source projects.

So it's patented, but probably unencumbered, then.
Hint: "encumbered" means restricted or blocked or limited. If the patent license is consistent with the FOSS license requirements (for example the GPL requires no restrictions on right to distribute modified versions, etc.), then the fact that some part of it is patented does not mean it's encumbered from the FOSS point of view.
Proprietary software is usually copyright-encumbered - your license may not allow copying it, and may not even give access to the source code. Many FOSS licenses also make restrictions - when you modify, you may not remove the names of previous contributors, for instance. Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, with the GPL this encumbrance is usually called "viral."

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[JasterBobaMereel]

Open Licences do not generally allow patented code, GPL does not allow patented code, BSD does not allow patented code

Just because you have the source code does not mean it is truly open, you may not be allowed to use your knowledge to improve the product or correct errors

Open standards do allow patented code (OOXML has them, so do many others), but in most cases these are not distributed in the USA *because* they are encumbered with patents ....

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[BitZtream]

I think you need to go read your licenses again. I know for certain the BSD license doesn't have the silly 'can't be patented' crap you speak of.

I wasn't aware of patents being a problem with GPLv2 (v3 is just over the top so I won't be bothered to understand all its crap).

I think you have some reading comprehension issues to work out.

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[noidentity]

Proprietary software is usually copyright-encumbered - your license may not allow copying it, and may not even give access to the source code. Many FOSS licenses also make restrictions - when you modify, you may not remove the names of previous contributors, for instance. Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?

Not in that case, because preserving the names of previous contributors doesn't interfere with modifying and sharing the software and its source code.

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[HiThere]

Any license that requires that you allow those to whom you distribute to code to modify and redistribute it requires that any patents that you require in order to modify and redistribute the code have the right to use them distributed with the code.

GPL2 isn't as explicit about it as the GPL3 is, but it's implicit in the license. (Caution: IANAL)

The BSD doesn't have that problem because it doesn't have that right of redistribution. And I happen to believe that the right of redistribution is important.

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL definitely is, and BSD is if it has more than 2-clauses.
You can be for freedom and openness or you can be for the GPL.
Knowledge wants to be free.

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[drinkypoo]

The BSD doesn't have that problem because it doesn't have that right of redistribution.

You certainly have the right to redistribute BSD-licensed code. That's what it's for; assigning the right of use and redistribution while retaining attribution. You don't necessarily have a right to use it, just like any other-licensed code. The GPL doesn't give you the right to use the code if you got it; however, the copyright holders have the right to stop distribution if the code cannot be used, under the GPLv3 (and perhaps GPLv2.)

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[ejasons]

Open Licences do not generally allow patented code, GPL does not allow patented code, BSD does not allow patented code

Actually, the GPL absolutely does allow patented code -- it just requires that the code not be encumbered by the patent, when distributed according to the GPL. However, that doesn't mean that the patent doesn't apply to code that isn't GPL-licensed.

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[HiThere]

If you don't have the right to redistribute the right to modify the code, you don't have the right to distribute the code using the GPL license. Not unless you are the sole author.

If you do have the right to distribute the right to redistribute the code, then either you are the patent holder, or you have acquired the right to redistribute the code from the patent holder (possibly via some chain of intermediaries). Or the code isn't patented.

If you are the sole author, then this reasoning isn't watertight. In that case you are not, yourself, bound by the GPL, so you have the right to redistribute the code in ways incompatible with the GPL. In that case one must rely on the doctrine of latches and various other legal traditions. It works out to the same thing, but the reasoning is too complex for me to follow. (IANAL). The only real exception is if the code being distributed is sold under a contract that specifically excludes the right to transfer the patents that would otherwise be granted under the GPL, In such a case the recipient of the code is prohibited under the GPL from redistributing the code. (I've never run across an instance of that, but it's a logical possibility.)

Again, caution, IANAL. And I didn't hire any of the people who have convinced me that this is what the law and the contracts mean.

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[aztracker1]

I'm actually a pretty big fan of the LGPL license.. I don't mind redistribution, and even linking as long as modifications to a given library/resource are redistributed. I actually despise the mySQL stance that their client libraries being GPL means you either buy a commercial license, or your program (that only uses the library) needs to be GPL. Imagine if Linus had this POV.

Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered

[kelnos]

Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?

Depends on how you define "blocked" and "limited" and your point of view in wanting to use the software. It would be difficult to call BSD-licensed software encumbered, but the GPL does indeed restrict how you can use the software if you want to make derivative works or redistribute. Not saying it doesn't give you more rights than simple copyright, but there are still restrictions and limitations.

Microsoft bashes itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is self-destructive.

Embrace, Extended, Extinguish

[commodore64_love]

Well yeah it's the same EEE philosophy they've followed over th last twenty years. Why abandon the philosophy when it works do brilliantly for them?

- EMBRACE the concept of open standards (previous phase).

- EXTEND these standards with Microsoft proprietary formats (the current ongoing phase).

- EXTINGUISH future competitors by claiming they violate these proprietary formats and may not use them, which means customers must buy Microsoft software to gain full functionality. Thus a once-open standards model becomes a closed MS-proprietary format. Again.

Re:Embrace, Extended, Extinguish

[andydread]

Oh? u mean like the morphing of the IMAP standard to Exchange which is still IMAP according to Microsoft.

EMBRACE = Create exchange based on IMAP

EXTEND = Replace the standard Trash and Sent folders with Deleted Items and Sent Items to break the protocol. EXTEND = Break Outlook compatibilty with IMAP with the above changes and failure to move deleted items to trash when using standard IMAP and OUTLOOK.

EXTINGUISH = If you impement our modifications of IMAP know as Exchange then you are violating our patents.

Re:Embrace, Extended, Extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you are no older than 20 if you still enjoy repeating this.

Re:Embrace, Extended, Extinguish

[commodore64_love]

I bet you are no older than 20 if you still enjoy repeating this.

Anon. Cowards are so funny. Like children - "I cutted my hair! I cutted my hair!" Awww so cute.

Re:Embrace, Extended, Extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

And.... it looks like I hit the mark again. So, is it 17?

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[ozmanjusri]

*sigh*

Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.

Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.

There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.

In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.

Open systems vs standards vs open source

[argent]

Open systems: systems based on unencumbered specifications for interfaces and protocols, usually with multiple interoperating implementations.

Closed systems: systems that are restricted in who can interoperate with and implement them, for example they may require commercial licensing.

Standards: Specifications for interfaces and protocols.

Open source systems: systems for which a freely redistributable implementation exists.

Not all systems fall clearly into the "open" or "closed" camp... these are really extremes along a continuum.

An open source system is usually not a closed system, but it may be if it is encumbered by patents or licensing that limits its use. An open source system may or may not be an open system... for example, a system with a single implementation where the specification for the interfaces and protocols is defined by that implementation should probably not be considered an open system, even if it's open source.

Open standards: I would assume this means standards that are unencumbered by licensing issues, anyone can implement them. Standards by definition are "open" to some degree simply by being standards, so qualifying the term with "open" means you're making a stronger statement than just "it's a standard".

GPL v2 does not cover patents

[tekniq]

You seem don't really understand that paten issues only covered by GPL v3 and above. Using v2 and below does not make you patent-problem- free.

Re:GPL v2 does not cover patents

[DragonWriter]

You seem don't really understand that paten issues only covered by GPL v3 and above.

Patent issues are addressed directly by the GPLv2, in section 7.

You're a lucky bastard

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it in the dining room. When they caught up to me, I was hunting alligators. They threw me over a broken off cypress stump, in the mud!!

Can I redefine RAND?

[davidwr]

How about we define "reasonable and non-discriminatory" so it's compatible with the major FOSS licenses? I mean, as long as definitions are on the table for re-defining....

Re:Can I redefine RAND?

[evilbessie]

I just thought of the RAND corperation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND

Re:Can I redefine RAND?

[Ed Avis]

Exactly. It would be better not to use the term 'RAND'. As RMS wrote:

These standards bodies typically have a policy of obtaining patent licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program. They often refer to such licenses by the term "RAND," which stands for "reasonable and non-discriminatory." That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory. It is true that these licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them unreasonable.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a little simpler than that.

There are trolls, and there are those who have been trolled.

You have been trolled.

Fucking SLAM - thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

That was awesome.

As the Church Lady would say...

[sconeu]

How conveeeeeenient.

Not just balanced... Fair and Balanced

[Toe, The]

Microsoft is probably just following the example of FoxNews, which of course is "Fair and Balanced." Says so right in the credits (and on the website and every couple minutes throughout the broadcast, so you just know it has to be true).

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot,

I wouldn't go that far. They've become more and more noticable, particularly in the last year, but they don't exactly go unchallenged. And a lot of their posts are far too obvious to have much impact.

The freedom in GPL.

[Anne Honime]

The GPL license shields the freedom of the end user from everyone, developpers of other open source and not-so-free licenses projects included. That's the point of its very existence.

You may want to or need to use another "free" license, but doing so always entail at some point that the end-user freedom can and will be reduced. This is not OK with the GPL, hence the strong stance on this point.

And, yes, IAL, and I read the GPL from top to bottom, every version of it.

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[TheRaven64]

The GPL license shields the freedom of the end user from everyone, developpers of other open source and not-so-free licenses projects included.

The end user becomes more free by having to pay someone to write a reimplementation of a CDDL algorithm to use with some GPL'd code? The user becomes more free by not being able to give their friend a copy of the binary without remembering to include a written offer for the source code, even though their friend (if they actually wanted the source) could still get it from the upstream source?

You may want to or need to use another "free" license, but doing so always entail at some point that the end-user freedom can and will be reduced

Really? The AGPL, for example, is incompatible with GPLv2 because it guarantees that users of the software have access to the source code. The ASL is incompatible with the GPLv2 because it grants the end user greater protection against software patent abuse. The GPLv3 is compatible with these licenses, because it explicitly allows optionally adding these requirements (so, maybe, they weren't so bad after all) but is incompatible with the GPLv2 because the anti-Tivoisation provisions, which guarantee the end users's right to run modified versions of the software on their hardware, count as extra restrictions.

And, yes, IAL, and I read the GPL from top to bottom, every version of it.

I'm not sure what IAL means, I Am Legend maybe? Or did you mean to say that you are a lawyer, in which case I am not surprised by your skill at doublethink, just disappointed by it. Interesting that you don't specify which of the (mutually-incompatible) versions of the GPL you prefer.

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[Anne Honime]

Thank you very much for proving my case better than I would have done it myself :

The end user becomes more free by having to pay someone to write a reimplementation of a CDDL algorithm to use with some GPL'd code?

At least, a sponsored GPL reimplementation of this code would become the common good of humanity. The mere fact that it would be needed just proves that CDDL is not concerned by the end user rights.

The user becomes more free by not being able to give their friend a copy of the binary without remembering to include a written offer for the source code, even though their friend (if they actually wanted the source) could still get it from the upstream source?

Providing a friend with a binary only module is a bad gift indeed. What if he further needs to port it ? What if he changes from processor ? Should he be deprived of your gift ? Your friend in that case is the end user, and you should treat him as well as you've been treated yourself before, because he's the one the GPL intends to protect now.

[...burps...] GPLv2 [more burps] GPLv2 [even more burps] The GPLv3 [and on and on]

I'm sure you know the difference between specifications and implementations, and pointing out defects of a specific version of a products merely show bugs that are therefore corrected upon identification. It does nothing to prove the underlying scheme right or wrong.

And, yes, IAL, and I read the GPL from top to bottom, every version of it.

I'm not sure what IAL means, I Am Legend maybe? Or did you mean to say that you are a lawyer, in which case I am not surprised by your skill at doublethink, just disappointed by it. Interesting that you don't specify which of the (mutually-incompatible) versions of the GPL you prefer.

Yes, I'm a lawyer. My personal choice is for the current version with provision you can relicense under any later revision (GPL v3+). Your sacarstic style (for a missing 'A', which is just a typo) just hints that you need to revert to ad hominem arguments when you clearly lack basis for your claim.

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[TheRaven64]

Your first point is a tautology. I hope you don't rely on such logic in court.

Your second point is strange. As a real example; I provided someone with a binary of a chat client that he uses, built from an svn snapshot because the upstream project only produces binaries for releases and he didn't have developer tools installed. In doing so, I violated the GPL, but provided him with a version that fixed some bugs he was encountering. But this, you say, is a bad gift? Because he might want to port that exact version rather than going to the upstream repository and getting the version with more bug fixes and features.

As to your third point, you are saying that the implementation is flawed, but the specification is correct? Therefore you are arguing for the idea of copyleft licenses, but not specifically for the GPL. At which point, I'd have to point out that the GPL is not the only copyleft license, and is incompatible with several of the others. I note here that you replaced my examples of other GPL-incompatible licenses which are GPL incompatible because they grant the user more freedoms with 'burps' and 'more burps'. Is this a standard legal form of argument?

Yes, finally, I'll admit the ad hominem, but suggest that an ad hominem at the end is still better than using a tautology followed by an opinion and a non-sequitur as substitutes for refuting points. If you are a lawyer, I would expect you to provide a better-structured argument. I would also expect a higher standard of written English ('what if he changes from processor?') if English is your first language, although from your usage of punctuation I would guess that it is not.

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[Anne Honime]

You are correct when you deduce from my writing skills that I'm not a native english speaker. But I strongly refute the tautology (I somehow admit the first sentence of my 1st point can be considered a non-sequitur, but it's not part of the argumentation really). The crux of the problem lies within your previous post, where, in answering my proposition that GPL protects the end user freedom, you, yourself, enter a non-sequitur by theorizing an hypothetical situation where an implementation released under a CDDL license would need a rewrite in order to be GPL-compatible. The mere fact that this specific implementation does not fall yet under the GPL umbrella, under your own assumptions, excludes any positive conclusion because (and this is an ontology, to be precise), the GPL is only potent to provide end user freedom on GPLed implementations. I admit a certain irony on my side when I used your own device to turn your argument inside-out, but it ends there.

On your second point, yes, providing end users with binaries only solution is a bad thing. Binaries are convenient, but it's much more important to be able to rebuild them to have them match unforseen hardware upgrades. It aims at avoiding planned obsolescence schemes, and it doesn't matter than under certain very specific edge cases it comes as an annoyance to the producer. In any case, the end user benefits more by having access to the code he runs than by not having access to it. What if your own svn built binary works, but released material doesn't because of a regression only your user suffers from ?

On my third point, again, you are the origin of the non sequitur, because most of your arguments revolve around the idea that I was wrong because 10 years ago the GPLv2 didn't forsee some sneaky moves from various vendors that wanted to benefit from the GPL without giving back the freedom they used to their clients and found loopholes to do so, and thus the specific GPLv2 wasn't made compatible with newer licenses crafted hastily on the spot to cover those loopholes. You conveniently forget that even in this remote times, you could chose a GPLv2+ license, with provisions to become compatible with any newer revisions of the license. Those hand picked samples doesn't prove that the GPL, as a whole, is not designed and does not evolves with the aim to safeguard end users freedom.

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[NoOneInParticular]

On your second point. Yes, you should always provide your end-user with the source, even if there's no chance in hell that he will look at it. If there's a problem with it, and he comes back to you, you will be happy that you now have the correct version. If somebody else gets the unthankful job, they can see what is different, and go to the main source (ignoring your patches). This is what free software is about: having access to the design plans of the binaries. It might not be 100% sensible in your particular circumstance, but it doesn't hurt you either. You never know.

I have, at several occasions, done custom coding around (L)GPL but also BSD software. I take it as a matter of pride to provide the source code of everything I have used to the customer as a zip file along with the binaries that do the actual work. This for the above reasons, but also to acquiant my customer with the concepts of free software: source included!

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[TheRaven64]

Except that, in this case, he could easily grab the source himself. Not only that, but he already had done. He couldn't build it, because he didn't have developer tools installed on that machine. He could have downloaded them, but was on a mobile (pay-per-KB) connection, so I provided a binary he could download. As to 'it doesn't hurt,' no, it doesn't hurt but it would have cost him money. Technically, the GPL allows me to just forward the URL where I got the source in this particular instance (clause 3c) but I forgot at the time, which is rather my point - it's easy to accidentally violate the GPL, but if you've got some money it's easy to work around the restrictions and use GPL'd code in proprietary products.

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[SETIGuy]

Technically, the GPL allows me to just forward the URL where I got the source in this particular instance (clause 3c) but I forgot at the time, which is rather my point

And for the Nth time you are wrong. Clause 3c only allows you to do that in the case where you are redistributing a binary provided to you with a source code offer.

.

You compiled this code so you needed to choose 3a (provide the source with the binary) or 3b (provide an offer to give any third party the source used to create this binary.) Since you probably didn't archive the code you used to build the binary, that leaves only clause 3a. In other words, always provide the source code with the binary!

Re:The freedom in GPL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh thanks, you just made the GPL look more stupid to me.

Is there a -1 nauseating mod?

[sconeu]

After reading your post, I have a serious need to go take a (another) shower.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a little simpler than that.

There are those who understand the meanings of the words they utter, and there are those who don't.

You don't.

Oh, NOW I get it...

[rickb928]

"The idea behind truly open standards"

They are talking about open standards. You all are talking about open source.

Different things.

Carry on.

Re:Oh, NOW I get it...

[marnues]

The difference is that one can be the implementation of the other. However, the philosophy behind them is the same.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[gtall]

On the contrary, I think their attacks are going to be self-defeating. Posts such as yours point out the schtick being advertised (the schtick having same veracity as the Marketing Dept. of the Sirius Cybernetic Corp. from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). PHBs don't read these boards, tech-savvy people do (well, more so than PHBs).

Put in a boarder context, MS would like to define a collection of lies by which it would like to be judged. The terms of that judgement, however, are collectively settled upon. MS is in effect attempting to lie to itself, and therein lies the seeds of MS's failure, Their approach cannot work and will only further antagonize and engender opposition. Who among us wants to be dictated to by semi-evolved Business School Product (will the people from the marketing dept. at MS please put your hands down, its embarrassing)?

Good guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent UP. Sometimes it is difficult to know why Microsoft engages in a particular evil.

Ideally, the FSF would follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if the GPL zealots behind Firefox's development were less hostile to 'patent-encumbered' technology. H.264 would have been standardized as the HTML 5 codec years ago; instead, they're attempting to push some inferior (but 'open') codec through, despite the lack of hardware support, or a thorough patent review, or basically anything else that the real corporations that would implement HTML 5 support would need.

Re:Ideally, the FSF would follow suit

[Rockoon]

I agree.

If it was decided today then the obvious winner is h.264.

But I think Mozilla's point is that we shouldn't make the decision until the winner is not only objectively the best choice, but also Open Forever. I can't say that I entirely disagree, but H264 has widespread low power hardware support already, and I think that trumps everything.

Its in the hardware on everything from cellphones to netbooks. Its already a device that people own, fully licensed, so patents simply dont matter here. If you don't pick h.264 then its equivilent to flipping every single one of these devices the finger, making most of them unfit for the purposes of this decision, voting them off the island.

Re:Ideally, the FSF would follow suit

[Svartalf]

Considering that the hardware you mention doesn't ALL exist on all platforms- and that support for the hardware doesn't exist on all platforms...your argument rings a bit hollow there.

Yes, it's in hardware. But not on everything like you claim, nor is it all supported because most of the vendors are trying to worry about supporting the DRM stuff along with it- and we won't get into software support for the codec in question.

Win NT on Alpha...

[Anne Honime]

OMG, what a sad joke it was !

the DEC Alpha was the absolute epitome of 64 bits processing in its times, a fabulous cpu running loops around what intel had to offer, and head and shoulders above the competition from Sun and IBM. The Alpha was emulating a top of the line Ppro faster than the ppro could run natively. And those retards at MSFT just ported a 32 bits NT to it, and moreover were unable to provide native software for it (MS Office can't run on the Alpha).

Allegedly, the bulk of the work on the 64 bit version of NT (call it 2K_64, XP_64 or whatever, it's never been released) was conducted on Alpha hardware for the lack of competent Itanium platforms at the time.

In short, MS benefited from the Alpha while doing their very best to kill the product, by not delivering the promised goods for it. They created high public expectations and their shoddy behaviours finally put DEC in a bad light.

It makes me sick to read such statements. I still run a PWS under Linux for the good old days memories, and the only comforting thoughts I have are that AMD managed to build upon DEC expertise to create the Athlon 64 after DEC had been swallowed by Compaq and their R&D disbanded.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

But we can't forget the pathetic little turds who interject with something really lame...

You know the type. Some nut swallowing faggot that says something gay like, "There are those who understand the meanings of the words they utter, and there are those who don't."

There are also shit eating fags like yourself that wouldn't know true greatness if it took a dump on your face.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.

As valid as this may be, stating it without any substantiation make you look like a conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, it's a blatant ad hominem.

Microsoft's definition of open...

[Anonymous Coward]

Free, DRM laden, pic of Goatse w/ every new Microsoft purchase. Incidentally, they just did a stealth update of IE on my system to IE8, kinda silly, really, since I use Firefox instead. What I was surprised by was that the update zorched my firefox bookmarks. Had to rebuild ALL of 'em. Quite annoying....

So all those hits then

[Anonymous Coward]

mean that there's no need to go to the MPEG LA and get a license to implement their codec?

Are you willing to back that up with a personal guarantee?

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and thus the circle continues. MS Troll claims some ignorance on the part of the poster (akin to claiming any and all discussions end when someone loses by invoking Godwin's law) to try to stifle competitive viewpoints by calling said poster a conspirator.

In fact, Microsoft Evangelism is documented in many locations by Microsoft employees themselves. If you don't know of this, then you are simply being ignorant (or are being "shilled" yourself.)

"I'm A Lawyer"? Doofus.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The end user becomes more free by having to pay someone to write a reimplementation of a CDDL algorithm to use with some GPL'd code?"

No, because someone else didn't care about the users freedom so they used CDDL to license it doesn't mean the GPL isn't making code free to endusers.

"Really? The AGPL, for example, is incompatible with GPLv2 because it guarantees that users of the software have access to the source code."

Yes. Really. Since the Affero GPL isn't GPL2 doesn't affect how free A GPL is.

"The ASL is incompatible with the GPLv2 because it grants the end user greater protection against software patent abuse"

Which abuse would kill the freedom of the enduser. Hence making sure the enduser is free if you use AGPL.

"the anti-Tivoisation provisions, which guarantee the end users's right to run modified versions of the software on their hardware, count as extra restrictions."

Which again would make the enduser non free.

If you wanted to demonstrate how non free GPL is, you've failed miserably. All you've done is that when new ways of making code non-free that doesn't use copyright (which was all that was available to source code when GPL2 was written), a new GPL is made to ensure those freedoms remain for the enduser.

Whoo.

Calling Black White

[doodlebumm]

Microsoft wants to call black white, while also calling it black and gray. What kind of arrogance makes them think that they can define all terms and create all definitions, and not have people question them?

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's fairly ironic to see the GP claiming "a blatant ad hominem" argument while at the same time making their post "a blatant ad hominem."

Not only that...

[bonch]

Not only that, but it's hilarious how Slashdot doesn't care about violating copyrights in piracy articles, but suddenly is all for copyright enforcement in GPL violation articles. The GPL is a copyright license, and you can't have it both ways. Every time Slashdot posts one of these stories, buried between anti-RIAA and pro-PirateBay propaganda, I have to crack a smile.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[HermMunster]

No bashing is occurring.

Facts are being discussed and reason is attempting to be made. In 2006/7 Microsoft explicitly claimed that they would kill open source. Later Ballmer claimed that open source was a cancer on the software industry. Recently Microsoft stated they would kill Google like they did Netscape. These aren't attempts to compete, they attempts to use their monopoly power to kill the competition. You compete based on the merits of your product.

Clearly and unequivocally this is nothing more than "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft is using their PR arm to attempt to make this out as a makeover while it is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the efforts of Open Source so that businesses look differently at it with less willingness to use it if there is an alternative.

It is no coincidence that Ballmer and Microsoft see open source as a bigger threat today in a sliding economy. They see the inroads that open source has made. It is no coincidence that this is happening at the largest slide in their revenue/profits. They see no other competition other than Linux and the Mac (and they have the Mac in hand as they develop some pretty strong software there).

Documentation

[tsa]

Is there no more substantial documentation than the links in the blurb about this? The links point to some blog posts and a few Wikipedia entries. Not very reliable if you ask me. I want a quote from MS themselves so I know what we are talking about here!

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

>In fact, Microsoft Evangelism is documented in many locations by Microsoft employees themselves Please post links to them. It would enhance your credibility and be hugely informative.

GPLv3?

[malevolentjelly]

I like how the article casually cites the GPLv3 as if any monetized project would ever touch it, or at the very most single-license code under it...

I hate to break it to you clowns, but nobody really cares what the GPLv3 says because it's a political missile, not a useful contribution to the world of software licensing. You really need to keep the discourse at the relevant license, which is the GPLv2. When companies support the GPLv3, it's just a token. It's almost always dual licensed to protect the companies who actually have to make money and support products built on the technology.

Besides this, it sounds to me like Microsoft is Re-re-defining open standards. Does anyone remember what "Open" meant in the days of Unix yore? CDE is "open." ;)

I don't know when GNU or the FSF or one of their apes decided that they held the official definition of open specifications, because they have been around for quite a while, longer than the software industry.

Re:GPLv3?

[HermMunster]

I can believe you are calling people clowns, but what bothers me is that you are *so utterly wrong* that you don't understand the pie on your own clown face. Somewhere around 50,000 projects now use the GPLV3 license. You are what, one man's opinion?

Re:GPLv3?

[malevolentjelly]

Somewhere around 50,000 projects now use the GPLV3 license.

How many projects in the open source ecosystem that actually pull in corporate cash use the GPLv3 exclusively? Can you name any off the top of your head? All those little "Bob's Random Number Generator" sort of projects are just foliage in that market. Only a few projects really receive corporate attention and sponsorship, such as the kernel itself. GCC only recently switched over and I guarantee you that will end up moving a lot of resources to the more sanely licensed LLVM. Any monetized project which switches to that license is committing suicide.

Lawyers

[xant]

I like to think that the dinosaurs did have corporate lawyers. When the earth started freezing over, they got eaten first.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[BitZtream]

Wait wait wait ... come close to destroying slashdot?

Wtf, a few zealots can destroy slashdot? If that were the case it would have died in the mid 90s from the other zealots.

MS trolls won't destroy what the Linux trolls have created, you guys have more spare Friday nights.

GPL is a RAND license

[harlows_monkeys]

Since GPL is a RAND license, I would love to here Mr. Moody's theory as to how RAND is incompatible with free software.

Re:GPL is a RAND license

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL discriminates against developers. While end users are allowed the four freedoms, developers are not allowed the freedom to modify and then the freedom to redistribute sequentially.

The big scam of course is that any end user that uses their freedom to modify is automagically reclassified as a developer and loses their freedom to redistribute.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[hairyfeet]

Oh please. Fanboys think their shit don't stink. News at 11. MSFT doesn't need to pay fanboys any more than Apple needs to pay their fanboys to drink the koolaid. The simple fact is NONE of the fanboys care to face reality and therefor sound like shills. Want proof (and watch how quick THIS get modded down by Linux fanboys)?-

Linux fanboys say Linux is ready for home users. Sure Linux is ready for home users IF they research their living asses off for every. single. piece. of hardware that they buy. Period full stop. Oh and don't forget that the "home user" has to be able to use CLI at the slightest hint of a problem. The simple fact is a good 99.995% of the money being spent on Linux development is being spent on server and NOT on desktop. And a quick trip to Staples, Best Buy, or Walmart with a pen and piece of paper will show even the most rabid fan you are looking at a good 80% of the stuff being sold there with either NO support, or piss poor, jump through CLI until you are blue in the face support (thanks Broadcom and Lexmark!). Home users have trouble finding their way around control panel. CLI? BWA HA HA HA HA HA! They would have an easier time solving cold fusion than making anything in CLI other than a total mess.

Does MSFT suck the big wet titty? Yep, sure do. Ever since Vista they have been cranking the bling while making the interface even shittier, where you have to take 6 steps where you used to need three. Apple? Too damned expensive and their fans will trip over themselves trying to convince you that a $2400 Mac is somehow "better" than a $1300 HP even though they are all Intel boxes now. Oh, and of course Apple is even worse than MSFT for trying to sweep their mistakes under the rug (like the exploding iPod problem) and let loose their army of flying monkey lawyers at the drop of a hat.

The answer is simple: Don't like MSFT? or Linux? or Apple? If you don't like the company DON'T USE THEIR PRODUCTS!!!! See how easy that was? If you buy OEM and refuse the license you can even get the "MSFT tax" returned to you! And is anyone surprised that another big corp doesn't want to use GPL? After RMS put the TiVo "gotcha" (its horrible! TiVo won't let me hack it so I can get free TiVo!) into GPL V3 even Linus won't use it on the kernel because he thinks RMS has gone too far. It isn't like the GPL guys are actually gonna use MSFT anything, or that RMS will ever compromise on dick, so what's the problem?

And finally, since I have karma to burn, here is a little dose of truth. Linux will stay a niche, because RMS won't allow a stable ABI. He won't allow it because that would allow "write once, use forever" drivers like you get with Windows, and for GPL zealots it is source code or nothing, so they will get nothing. Apple will gain some share, maybe even hit 20%, but won't go any higher because Apple is fricking expensive and Steve has no desire to compete with Dell, and Windows 7 will be a hit because MSFT listened to all the "Vista sux!" rants and actually fixed the mess. Of course Vista owners will get burned just like we unfortunate bastards that got burnt by WinME (You owe me an apology and a copy of Win2K Bill Gates! WinME sucked!!!) when they pretend that Vista doesn't exist and gets abandoned right after the 7 launch. Meanwhile fanboys will be fanboys, while everyone else uses the right tool for the job. Which for most is Windows on the desktop, Linux on the server, and Apple if you want the fancy or are a graphic designer.

Take off the Tinfoil Hat

[pandymen]

Debate the article's position and take off your tinfoil hat regarding Microsoft's intentions. While many readers, myself included, do not trust Microsoft's intentions, I would rather argue the points raised in the article.

Did you even RTFA?

The main point the man made was simple. Contributions to a standard may be patent protected, but not within the scope of the standard. Companies and individuals would be able to use the standard and the patented items therein as long as they are using the patented items within the scope of the standard.

Read his analogy about the hypothetical patented aphrodesiac that was a good fit for a particular standard.

While I doubt that he is entirely forthcoming about Microsoft's intentions, he makes a good point.

the new door

[genner]

A screen door is more open than a wooden one but you shouldn't try to walk through it.

That's unclear.

[Stu Charlton]

While in principle, I agree, it's unclear what level of "free" involvement one expects from a standards organization.

"Pay to play" standards organizations have for long been the norm - including the W3C. The IETF, while not pay-to-play, is certainly funded by large organizations.

So, in their cases, while you don't need to pay to implement the standard, you do need to contribute to the standards organization costs (not trivial) to participate in forming the standard.

In short, organizing teams of people costs money, and someone has to foot the bill. That's either a background benefactor, or its a published process for participants.

Re:That's unclear.

[BlueLightning]

I think however that at some point you have to stand back and look at why you are trying to create a standard. The answer *ought* to be "for the good of the consumer, by way of creating a well-known benchmark, and therefore by extension the good of the industry". The second important realisation is that you achieve the most broad adoption of that standard (surely an important thing, if you are really serious about establishing the standard) by making it as easily available and implementable as you can. Imposing extra barriers such as fees and/or patents does the opposite.

Now, I'm willing to accept that standards organisations (or perhaps, their individual member organisations) don't necessarily think this way. I think they should, though.

Slick Billy

[carrier lost]

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Benanov]

"After RMS put the TiVo "gotcha" (its horrible! TiVo won't let me hack it so I can get free TiVo!)"

Straw man.

It was never about free TiVo as in how much you pay for it, you know. It was about DRM. TiVo can remotely delete/expire stored content, so it was actually inferior to the old VCR model in terms of letting you format/time shift.

That being said, MythTV had a provider of subscription-based TV listings but too many people just copied them around/accessed the stream without paying and now it's gone. This idea that people think they don't have to pay for software, any software, is why we can't have certain classes of nice things.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the OP, but this is quite a good one.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot

Who says "close to"?

Slashdot is irrelevant now, and this is prime reason why.

Not that this will ever see the screen on 99% of the slashdot readers, which is a second reason why.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Microsoft_evangelists

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/bb905078.aspx

http://www.nearsoft.com/blog/MS-test.html

Not all ISO standards are open

[dwheeler]

ISO (among other organizations) creates international standards, but not all standards are open. If you're adding the adjective "open" to the noun "standard", then presumably the adjective modifies the noun in some way. Yes, we then get to argue about what the term "open" means when attached to the term "standard", but clearly it can't just mean "it's a standard", or we wouldn't add the adjective.

If implementers have to make royalty payments, then that excludes many possible suppliers, and thus such a standard cannot possibly be open. That isn't just my idea; the EU, for example, agrees. In "European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services" (Version 1.0, 2004, page 9), the IDABC division of European Union adopted a definition that said that to be an open standard "The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis." The South Africa definition already requires royalty-freeness as well. My paper Is OpenDocument an Open Standard? Yes! analyzes one standard (OpenDocument) to determine if it's an open standard, by using several definitions of open standard. Two of the three most popular definitions of "open standard" of the time, as determined by Google, required royalty-freeness as a necessary condition (Perens' and the EC's). Since Google's pagerank algorithm prefers pages that more people link to, it's reasonable to believe that most people, when they say "open standard", include "royalty-free" as part of their definition. In the case of Europe and South Africa (at least), that definition even has official sanction.

If "most people" use a term in a particular way - especially when that use is formally approved of by many governments - then that's what the term normally means. After all, that's how language works in general; the mapping of sounds to meanings is arbitrary, but we have to agree on the mapping to communicate in a particular language. It's understandable why some companies would like to redefine this term, or at least confuse its meaning. But we don't need to agree with them.

Here's what the guy actually said

[shutdown -p now]

Here's what the Microsoft guy actually said in his blog post:

I have no problem with the concept of royalty-free patent licensing. In fact, nor does my employer (MS). I favor the idea the the organizations themselves, and their members, have the ability to choose which model makes sense. I think that things like defensive suspension are really important. Those terms have a dampening effect on litigation in a given sphere â" that is a good thing. I think that limitation of scope is reasonable. If my contribution is about a given protocol, but it turns out that same technology is also the worldâ(TM)s greatest aphrodisiac (going for the over-the-top example here to make a point), then my royalty-free contribution should reasonably be limited to the protocol. I may well want to keep the super love-stuff (sorry â" this is a really tortured analogy) to myself, or release it as a completely proprietary invention. I fundamentally still believe that innovations are opportunitiesâ¦and that is a good thing (for the inventor and for society). But the âoeno IP restrictionsâ concept of âoeopen standardsâ does away with too much. Out of balance

That's what is meant by balance there.

How do we stop this?

[Requiem18th]

people focus, how do we stop this disinformation campaign?

Re:How do we stop this?

[daemonburrito]

There is an effort to do something about "online campaigns" and so-called "guerilla marketing" (read: astroturfing): http://www.google.com/search?q=ftc+testimonials+and+endorsements. The way the FTC thing is shaping up, it would at least give individuals a place to complain about compensated blogging and commenting.

However, it's a pretty dismal situation. As long as people continue to have positive feelings for companies who give them free laptops, there will be a problem. Outing someone as a shill carries a legal hazard (check out Wikipedia's guidelines on outing "COI" editors), and it's pretty much impossible to prove without the power of discovery. And even then, the shills don't necessarily think that they're shills; they are genuinely warm and fuzzy about the company that gave them a laptop. And beyond even that, you have n waves of advocates that aren't shills but sycophants, who believe that their favorite coder/tech columnist/frat-core blogger is just so right on.

Since the FTC is really pretty unlikely to do anything that matters (advertising is famously "self-regulated", tee-hee), and abolishing software patents in the US is impossible, what's left is as much sunshine as possible. Projects like sourcewatch.org and wikileaks.org are fighting the good fight.

In the end though, on this specific issue, libre software may shrink. That we got this far at all is amazing; who woulda thunk it 15 years ago? They can't really stop us from sharing our code. If we have to cauterize Gnome, so be it. It was crufty anyway, right? Gotta love green-field projects.

Aside: To anyone who doubts that Microsoft shills are everywhere, check out some Mono blogs. You'll find several people who say that Tomboy is the only reason they use Linux. Seriously.

microsoft....rebranded as

[3seas]

... small think....

Micro Open

[sgt scrub]

They should give it their own name. I prefer Micro Open. That way they can sue people that use names like Pico Open, Barely Open, and Totally not hardly even close to Open.

Decades of this

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early 1990's, Bill Gates came to MIT. He gave a small talk. Since M$ was then notably misimplementing internet protocols, he was asked Microsoft's position on "open standards". He paused, got a goofy, aren't-I-clever smile on his face, and replied, "Well, it depends what you mean by ooopennnn". And then stood there grinning at us.
.
At least Balmer is more straightforward in his indifference to the general welfare. He wants to "F*ing kill" things.
.
Some companies pride themselves on considering what is good for their profession, industry, society, country, or world, even when making competitive decisions. I don't recall anyone ever suggesting Microsoft is one of them. At least not at the top.
.
"Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google." Balmer is reported as saying by Lucovsky. The thought that the world might be a better place with Google in it, apparently never arises.
.
Not with Google, or ODF, or an uninjured ISO, or linux on netbooks, or BeeOS, or a web with a decade of fast cross-browser Javascript, or simply the dominant company in our industry being seen to respect and obey the law. Like a Sony CEO believing nothing good has come from the Internet, the leadership of Microsoft has been, and remains, deeply flawed.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[tuxgeek]

From the tone of your post, I can tell you must really be into the German Scheissen movies
you're one sick puppy

"Open" Standards are a joke.

[GlobalMind]

The meaning changes depending on who you're talking to, what they're representing and what seems to be convenient at the time.

Is it the OS? The hardware? The protocols implemented? Please.

I get this all the time in the enterprise systems space. "Industry standard servers" based on "open standards" really? Intel chips are open? Windows is open? You'll give me the source code & designs for those?

Or hey "open systems" storage. I.E. everything that's WinTel. Oh but hey UNIX is supposed to be open too, right? Oh wait, unless it's running on something other than x86 hardware, then it's the evil "proprietary."

Whatever. It's gone from being a legitimate technology premise to politics as usual. And of course Microsoft would try to spin this their way.

Re:"Open" Standards are a joke.

[Svartalf]

Open Standards are just what they claim to be.

TCP/IP, the protocol which was used to provide the transport to have this little discussion we're all having, is a good example of an Open Standard.

"Industry Standard Servers" isn't "Open Standard Servers" unless you're going to allow that Linux MIGHT be such a standard. At which point, you could use Intel, AMD, Sierra PMC, ARM, and a few others to use as a CPU for your server. (And we would want to tell the people calling Windows stuff "open" to quit taking bong hits before posting or talking about that sort of stuff... :-D ).

"Open Systems Storage"... Hm... Are they talking about using Fiber Channel in a JBOD configuration, or perhaps are they talking about an E-SATA JBOD or perhaps even a 1 Gig or 10 Gig iSCSI interface over Ethernet? All of which ARE open standards. If they're talking about MS specific stuff, there's nothing "open" about that and someone should correct them on that score.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[tuxgeek]

Your post implies there is a form of collective intelligence within Microsoft
Consider now Microsoft Bob?
I rest my case

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[hairyfeet]

Care to read what RMS says on the subject? He says he specifically put in the "anti-TiVo" clause because while you can get the source code you can NOT run it on the TiVo. Well no shit. Lets be honest here-do you HONESTLY think that hackers would have been running code on their TiVo just for fun? Or would it have been to either A-allow you to easily pull vids off the device, thus making sure the *.A.As pull the plug on the TiVo, or B-to get free TiVo service?

But notice how not a single time does RMS say anything about TiVo or their right to survive his GPL, because he don't give a shit. All he cares about is his "four freedoms" and I think it wouldn't be hard to prove that RMS is about as anti-business as you can possibly get. So is it a surprise that yet another company wouldn't touch GPL with a ten foot pole? There is a GOOD reason why companies talk about "GPL infection", it is because GPL V3 is anti-business period. All RMS has EVER cared about is hacking and if said hacking puts a company under? Bonus. But don't yell "straw man" when RMS' own words are against you.

Re:"open" is just a word and doesn't imply a licen

[Svartalf]

Words have meaning. So, nothing is "just a word". Open has the following meaning:

From dictionary.com:

13. without restrictions as to who may participate: an open competition; an open session.

...or in our case, an open standard or open source.

It's not just a word and it DOES apply here and it does adjust what "standard" means, considerably.

except if it's 1KB/s, of course

[Mathinker]

> 1KB has been 1024 bytes since at least the '60s.

Yes, and 1Kbit/s has always been 1000 bits/s. Nice, eh?

> By using power of ten units for prefixes and power of two units for bytes and nibbles, you make
> things needlessly complicated

Right. How much data can a CPU running at 1 GHz receive and process in 10 seconds without buffering if it requires 1 cycle per 10 bytes to do so?

Complication is in the eye of the beholder.

To me, looking at terms like "gay", or "hacker", it seems to be less complicated to adopt a change in language rather than having to convert between bases for various calculations. Especially if, in my eyes, the change settles an inconsistency in something which deserves to be standardized.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[Sean Hederman]

*sigh*

What do they teach kids in school these days?

Now, that's an ad-hominem. You can tell because I didn't address the substance of the argument.

Boarder context?

[BancBoy]

Put in a boarder context

Snow or surf?

A car analogy would work better...

We define the rules. We, the people.

[unity100]

not you. neither any other 'board'.

you are trying to tap into the great dynamism that goes around the open source world, practically building the internet as of now. which involves countless developers and administrators that develop, deploy and maintain thousands of apps in countless websites and devices. yet, you come up with shit that seeks to change what ground rules those people decided on, for your own profit.

excuse me, schmucks, but wake up. we are talking about hundreds of thousands of developers around the world here, from countless countries. they are 'the people' in this case. they make up the rules. you do NOT make up any rules. you stick by the rules. or, you can fork your shitty non-gpl gpl to your ends and dabble in your corner. whatever you put out probably wont be used by anyone like the other shit you released to lock developers down to your shit before.

this is not something you can change to suit yourself. you have to change yourselves to suit it.

history lesson

[speedtux]

The definition I gave is the one that has been accepted by the computing industry since around 1970. The definition you quote:

Until the 1990's, the legal status of software patents remained unsettled. Until then, an "open standard" for software was simply one that was published (as opposed to "closed standars" like Microsoft Office). When software patents became an issue, the meaning of the term "open standard" for software was up in the air for a few years, but it has been pretty much settled now: as far as software is concerned, open standards must be published and royalty free.

Organizations like the ITU historically dealt in hardware, where the issues were different, but blindly applying definitions from the hardware world to software does not make sense.

and so we enter the mode known as

[nimbius]

extend: redefinition or change of the present standard in an apparent move to increase its worth.

please stay tuned for extinguish, where you will find we have replaced joes GPLv3 with a warm cup of microsoft open source...lets see if he gets punished for noticing!

other developments will include a spinning Richard Stallman turbine capable of powering an entire city block.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[hairyfeet]

I get modded troll for pointing out what sucks with ALL the OSes. I think that is funnier than shit. I got karma from hell baby, yeah!

But the point still stands. Don't like MSFT? Or the GPL? or Apple? Then DON'T USE THEIR PRODUCTS!!!! How hard is that? It is called "voting with your wallet". I know, its a concept. And let us be honest here, it isn't like the followers of RMS are gonna be using MSFT shit anyway, as they consider MSFT the great Satan. That is why Linus said MSFT hate "was a disease".

And I repeat: You do NOT need to pay fanboys to shill. All fanboys think their shit don't stink. News at 11. I have met drinkers of the Steve koolaid that think the PC was invented by Woz and that Steve could fart and out would come sunshine, I have met those that think Gates is as smart as Steven Hawking. And I have met those that think RMS should rank up there with the greatest minds of or time. News Flash: They are ALL full of shit.

They are just Operating Systems People! I feel like the Shat telling Star Trek Nerds "It was just a TV Show! Get a life already!" if it does the job you need it to do...fine. If not it is shit for you so move on. But all this rampant fanboy bullshit just muddies the waters and makes everyone look like fools or tools if you dare to like one or the other because you get lumped in with the nuts. So mark me down fanboys, I got karma to last for decades.

why get a patent but not charge royalties?

[enkidukid]

In some cases, they patent and make the patent available to prevent others from patenting the same idea and demanding royalties from them (defensive patents). The Patent Office is so overloaded and limited in its expertise that it will often grant a patent to something that should be considered common art. Getting the patent may be expensive, but it could be better than long term royalties, or worse, your competitor gets the patent and then won't license to you.

misdirection

[twoHats]

So as anyone with thought process intact might have realized immediately - this is just a way to muddy the water for anyone who might have been paying attention to gpl. Did anyone take this at face value? Really?

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[InverseParadox]

Care to read what RMS says [fsf.org] on the subject? He says he specifically put in the "anti-TiVo" clause because while you can get the source code you can NOT run it on the TiVo.

Yes, exactly.

The entire point of the GPL is to make sure that people can edit the software they use (refer back to the semi-famous "RMS and a bad printer driver" story), or more particularly, to guarantee them some basic freedoms about what they can do with that software. If, after editing, they can't use it anymore, then that's a problem.

What those edits involve has absolutely no bearing on that central point.

If TiVo didn't want to have people able to edit the code running on the TiVo unit, they shouldn't have released it under the GPL - including, if necessary, not re-using already-GPLed code from other people. They discovered a loophole by which they could fulfill the letter of the GPL but not its intent or spirit - allow people to edit the code, but not run it. RMS quite naturally wanted to close that loophole, to prevent them or others from doing the same thing in the future; the GPLv3 was his way of doing so.

(And no, "but you *can* edit it, you just can't run it afterwards" doesn't fly - because at that point, you're no longer editing the code you *are* running, you're editing code you *aren't* running and never will be able to run.)

Neverending thread

[Anonymous Coward]

I sense one.