Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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).
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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"?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.