Why We Still Need OSI

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday May 25, 2010 @02:24AM from the both-sides-of-the-debate dept.

ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "In response to a comment on yesterday's blog, Simon Phipps writes about the old rivalry between the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative (OSI). 'I have been (and in plenty of ways still am) a critic of OSI, as well as a firm supporter and advocate of the FSF. I believe OSI should be a member organisation with a representative leadership. ... But the OSI still plays a very important and relevant role in the world of software freedom.' For instance: Licence approvals have become a much more onerous process, with the emphasis on avoiding creation of new licences, updating old or flawed ones, and encouraging the retirement of redundant ones. It would be great to see the stewards of some of the (in retrospect) incorrectly approved licences ask for their retirement."

87 of 108 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:FTFS: by Pojut · 2010-05-25 02:27 · Score: 1

Or is this another "it can be spelled multiple ways, clod!" kind of thing...?

--
Living With a Nerd
Re:FTFS: by DavidR1991 · 2010-05-25 02:28 · Score: 4, Informative

British spelling. True story (and it's the correct form of licence too)
Of course we need the OSI by Bemopolis · 2010-05-25 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Sure, it turns out that S.P.H.I.N.X. is not quite the threat they once were thought to be, but the Guild of Calamitous Intent still lives!

--
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
1. Re:Of course we need the OSI by aapold · 2010-05-25 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  S.P.H.Y.N.X. is just O.S.I. masquerading as S.P.H.Y.N.X.....
  
  --
  "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
2. Re:Of course we need the OSI by Sir_Lewk · 2010-05-25 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is a quote from the TV show the other poster was referencing.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
3. Re:Of course we need the OSI by Dave+Emami · 2010-05-25 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  The OSI to which he was referring is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9bZwBzITyk
  
  --
  
  "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
4. Re:Of course we need the OSI by gmhowell · 2010-05-25 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  So sad. This has been sitting here for eight hours without an upmod?
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Don't spoil it by proprosing peace! by elrous0 · 2010-05-25 02:36 · Score: 1

I so love a good geek slap-fight. Though this is not as good as a true geek throwdown, it's entertaining nonetheless.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Don't spoil it by proprosing peace! by mcgrew · 2010-05-25 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Your link is bad. I think you wanted to send people here.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
So tell me... by Rob+Riggs · 2010-05-25 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Who the heck was in charge of the OSI when all these stupid licenses were being approved? I know there was a huge fuss about some of the crap being approved back in the day. I always felt it was somewhat of a sham meant to give cover to commercial organizations wanting to create "almost open source" licenses. Anyone really desiring to release open source already had a plethora of valid and tested licenses to choose from.

--
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
1. Re:So tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 02:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Eric Raymond. Enough said.
2. Re:So tell me... by Sir_Lewk · 2010-05-25 02:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Anyone really desiring to release open source already had a plethora of valid and tested licenses to choose from.
  And the OSI does a very nice job of categorizing them for the convenience of others. What exactly is your issue with them? That they recognize licenses as open source licenses of some kind that you personally dislike?
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
3. Re:So tell me... by eln · 2010-05-25 03:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  OSI was purely a product of the Internet boom. It was designed to "mainstream" Open Source by encouraging businesses to open source their stuff. At a time when businesses were scrambling to make sense of this whole Internet thing, the OSI came along and tried to convince them that open source was a big part of embracing the Internet. To do this, they basically bent the definition of what "open source" was so they could get businesses who were highly suspicious of it on board. Any business that gave even lip service to open source was basically allowed to carry the label in the name of expanding the movement, even if their licenses amounted to little more than "you can look at some of the source, but only between 2-3pm on alternating Thursdays when the moon is full, and you can't copy any of it." That's an exaggeration of course, but it seems clear now that the over-eagerness to get businesses on board and the lengths that were taken to get them on board seriously watered down both the definition and the spirit of what open source is supposed to be.
  
  While Bruce Perens has managed to spin all of this into a lucrative career, and Eric S. Raymond managed to famously become a temporary Internet paper millionaire before his big mouth made him a pariah to the movement, the OSI's eagerness to shape (some would say distort) open source in order to appease businesses has been a major point of friction between them and the FSF. While many businesses today use open source, and some even contribute to it, it seems for the most part the fruit of OSI's labor is that many businesses learned how to use open source software to reduce their own development and/or licensing costs while giving nothing back to the community that produced it.
  
  So yes, from the perspective of many of the businesses, it was a big sham meant to give them an "open source stamp of approval" while remaining largely closed source and proprietary. The OSI, however, ignored that in the name of "spreading the movement", which happened to work out well for their own personal finances (if only temporarily, in Raymond's case).
4. Re:So tell me... by nomadic · 2010-05-25 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  It was designed to "mainstream" Open Source by encouraging businesses to open source their stuff. At a time when businesses were scrambling to make sense of this whole Internet thing, the OSI came along and tried to convince them that open source was a big part of embracing the Internet.
  
  Yep, I always looked at it as the process by which big-L Libertarians try to reconcile their advocacy of free software with their obsessive love of money. Never really gelled.
5. Re:So tell me... by harlows_monkeys · 2010-05-25 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Who the heck was in charge of the OSI when all these stupid licenses were being approved?
  If the license meets their "Open Source" definition, then they have to approve it if they want to maintain any credibility.
  This is no different than the way the FSF lists many licenses on their list of Free Software licenses that they tell you that you should not use. The licenses meet their definition of "Free Software" so they have to include them or they lose credibility.
6. Re:So tell me... by jedidiah · 2010-05-25 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  The truth is that cooperation is not at odds with making a profit. Sometimes it is in everyone's
  best interests to collaborate. Governments play this role when individual companies are unable
  to act like grown up people and cooperate when it makes sense to do so.
  One key thing to remember is that most companies are not interested in being the next Microsoft
  or Apple. So a framework that is centered around this sort of approach to software does not work
  for most companies (or people).
  If something is not a part of your core competitive advantage, being terribly proprietary about
  it probably doesn't do you any benefit. It may do you harm. It is likely the least efficient
  approach in the aggregate.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
7. Re:So tell me... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-05-25 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  OSI's eagerness to shape (some would say distort) open source in order to appease businesses has been a major point of friction between them and the FSF.
  Why would definition of "open source" be a point of contention for the FSF? Aren't they themselves claiming that they're all about "free software", which is totally not the same thing as "open source"?
8. Re:So tell me... by drinkypoo · 2010-05-26 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Any business that gave even lip service to open source was basically allowed to carry the label in the name of expanding the movement, even if their licenses amounted to little more than "you can look at some of the source, but only between 2-3pm on alternating Thursdays when the moon is full, and you can't copy any of it."
  Open means interoperable and Open Source means you can look at the source and usually even use it to make modifications to the product, but says nothing about redistribution. This is why Free Software is superior to Open Source software. However, both have their place; Open Source is still preferably to being completely closed.
  
  While Bruce Perens has managed to spin all of this into a lucrative career, and Eric S. Raymond managed to famously become a temporary Internet paper millionaire before his big mouth made him a pariah to the movement, the OSI's eagerness to shape (some would say distort) open source in order to appease businesses has been a major point of friction between them and the FSF.
  
  Personally I find Bruce Perens' desire to claim that he invented the term "Open Source" (hint: he didn't; even Caldera was using it before he claimed to have invented it, to advertise a release of FreeDOS) to be the crux of this point. He who invents a term gets to tell us what he meant by it, but Perens is making a claim to something he never invented. At least two more of the four people involved in the meeting at which he claims it was invented also claim to have invented it, so they're all a bunch of liars.
  Still, it's important to recognize that Open Source only means you get to look at the code.
  
  So yes, from the perspective of many of the businesses, it was a big sham meant to give them an "open source stamp of approval" while remaining largely closed source and proprietary.
  No, if you can look at the code, it's Open Source. Further, only the customer really need have this access for it to be Open Source.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:So tell me... by drinkypoo · 2010-05-26 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why would definition of "open source" be a point of contention for the FSF? Aren't they themselves claiming that they're all about "free software", which is totally not the same thing as "open source"?
  OSI wanted to set itself up as the gatekeeper of all Open Source licenses, of which Free Software licenses are a subset. They wanted to be the ones to interpret the licenses for you and tell you which one to use. And they wanted to define the term Open Source to be similar to Free Software, when it obviously is not, based on past usage: "Open" means interoperable and "Open Source" means that you can see the source so that you can alter it for your own purposes (if you are a customer) or interoperate with it. It's basically a form of documentation, releasing the code as that documentation. The OSI's activities can be taken as an attempt to lump Free and Open software together, but one is about rights and the other is about pragmatism.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:So tell me... by Russ+Nelson · 2010-05-26 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhhhh, dude, I'm still working for a living. I don't know where you bought your facts, but you should ask for your money back. Money back!
  
  --
  Don't piss off The Angry Economist
11. Re:So tell me... by Russ+Nelson · 2010-05-26 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, drinky, but your poo is still stinky. Open Source, per the Open Source Definition, requires redistribution rights. But I admire your creativity with the facts. Say, are you still a member of the Flat Earth Society?
  
  --
  Don't piss off The Angry Economist
we need OSI to keep their paperwork current by iggymanz · 2010-05-25 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/10/06/the-open-source-initiatives-corporate-status-is-suspended-a-caos-theory-qa/
1. Re:we need OSI to keep their paperwork current by WebMink · 2010-05-25 03:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Note that the story here was that, much to the current Board's surprise, it turned out that accounts for some previous years well in the past had been created but for some unknown reason not filed with the State of California. The first the current Board knew of this was when we heard about the suspension. We immediately located the old accounts and arranged for them to be retrospectively filed, and in response the State lifted its suspension.
  Naturally there are people who want to keep the memory of this incident alive and are doing their best to raise it every time OSI is mentioned. While not desirable, we've since heard from many sources that this is an all-too-common event for all-volunteer organisations.
2. Re:we need OSI to keep their paperwork current by s4ltyd0g · 2010-05-25 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  sorry about the bad down mod
3. Re:we need OSI to keep their paperwork current by iggymanz · 2010-05-26 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  that was very *recent* incident.
  so how's your mandatory 990-N filing with the federal IRS? last I checked OSI was delinquent on that too
OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Darkness404 · 2010-05-25 03:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

OSI is getting exactly what they pushed: open code tied to closed devices. When you fight for open as a key to business success rather than user freedom, we get Android and their closed phones, we get devices running Linux that are essentially black boxes because you can't get them to run anything else, etc.

What OSI has pushed forward has taken hold. However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Sir_Lewk · 2010-05-25 03:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
  So quick to disregard BSD advocates...
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
2. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by spottedkangaroo · 2010-05-25 03:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If you use the BSD license you end up with OSX and (I mean this as seriously as I can say it): fuck Apple. I think Apple is a great reason to never chose the BSD license.
  
  --
  Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
3. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Sir_Lewk · 2010-05-25 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You make the mistake of assuming that BSD advocates are not fully aware of this possibility, and are perfectly ok with it. The BSD TCP/IP stack has found it's way into just about every proprietary system since it was around too, do you think they don't realize this as well? Not everyone is a fan of copyleft and it is ignorant to assume so.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
4. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by hedwards · 2010-05-25 03:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I fail to see a problem. You make it sound like Apple doesn't give back and that they just stole the code without putting in any time, effort or money on integrating it and creating a polished product. Point of fact, Apple uses the BSD license on their code, not sure if they do for all the open source stuff, but they definitely use it.
  
  Additionally it means that you can use binaries if you choose to, whereas with the GPL that's been getting dicier and dicier over the years.
5. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by davester666 · 2010-05-25 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Are you trying to imply they just use the code but don't contribute back?
  http://http//opensource.apple.com/ begs to differ.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
6. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-05-25 03:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If you use the BSD license you end up with OSX
  The most popular desktop Unix variant in the world? Oh the horrors!
7. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by davester666 · 2010-05-25 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Er. http://opensource.apple.com/
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
8. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by larry+bagina · 2010-05-25 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Apple could have based OS X on linux (remember mklinux?) -- A linux kernel with a closed-source GUI on top. How is that any different than using a BSD kernel (which they do provide the source for) underneath?
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
9. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by samkass · 2010-05-25 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you use the BSD license you end up with OSX and (I mean this as seriously as I can say it): fuck Apple. I think Apple is a great reason to never chose the BSD license.
  Yeah! Fuck Apple! Fuck WebKit and the Chrome it rode in on! Fuck LLVM and clang! Fuck GrandCentralDispatch and their attempts at bringing us into the modern world of parallelism. Fuck the dozens and dozens of projects that Apple has spent their money contributing to.
  Seriously, man, calm down. Apple is actually a perfect case study in why BSD-like licenses are a great thing for innovation and code sharing in the corporate world. Your Chrome browser running on your Android wouldn't be half so nice if not for Apple...
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
10. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by sago007 · 2010-05-25 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
  So in the future all devices will be completly closed and prevented from ever being open?
  I would prefer to be in a complete open world. But then reading the FSF's homepage I often get the impression that if you cannot convert fully to free software then there is no point converting at all. They constantly attack any project allowing a transition from closed to open if it is not fully open. It just isn't possible right now and only gets harder with time.
  I believe that the goal is ultimately the same (fully open) but FSF has a philosophically approach with freedom for a few and OSI has an realistic approach for freedom for the mass.
11. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by DragonWriter · 2010-05-25 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you use the BSD license you end up with OSX
  
  And Free/NetBSD, etc. If you use a BSD-style license (or a public domain declaration, like SQLite), sure, you'll have commercial, closed derivatives. If there is sufficient community interest and the code is open, you'll also have a thriving open-source community, and often the people making closed derivatives (or in-house derivatives that aren't distributed under any license) will still commit code -- and money --back to the open projects (because they realize the benefit they get from having the community improving the code, even if they have some bits they want to keep for themselves.)
12. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by DragonWriter · 2010-05-25 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
  No, we can't. First of all, because I doubt we'll all agree that "half-open" devices are inherently evil, and second because I'm sure some of us would disagree that, even granting that "half-open" devices are evil, that the general approach in the GPL v3 approach to addressing the problem is desirable, and lastly because the GPL v3 specifically allows half-open business- (rather than consumer-) oriented devices, so even if the general approach it takes to addressing half-open devices were a desirable approach to dealing with a real problem, the GPLv3 would not, in fact, prevent half-open devices.
13. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Darkness404 · 2010-05-25 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The thing is, as much as I'd really like to dismiss RMS and the rest of the FSF as a bunch of loons who don't understand how software works, I can't because they've been spot on for a lot of things. And really it seems like http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png we say that their policies are unreasonable, that their predictions are outlandish but then they come true.
  
  Look back at "Can you trust your computer?" written by RMS in I believe 2002
  
  The technical idea underlying treacherous [trusted] computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.
  
  Does that not sound like it hasn't already happened? In 2002, yeah, it sounded stupid, sounded outlandish. But look at the iPhone, restrictions on even Android devices like the BackFlip, DRM in the form of "unlimited music", etc.
  
  And this isn't an isolated incident, look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html and see when they were written, a lot of them, if not all of them, came true. Perhaps not in the way that it was written, but the underlying forces did it in a different way.
  
  I'd really, really like to say that the FSF has unworkable policies, and many times they do, but I can't help but looking at their past work and seeing how they were right on track.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
14. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by 0100010001010011 · 2010-05-25 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck OpenSSH/SSL, all the BSD projects, GPL OR BUST!
  And you wonder why the world doesn't understand OSI, you can't even agree among yourselves.
15. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by dfghjk · 2010-05-25 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices."
  No, we can't.
  Open software is open software. It does not come with any promise that you have hardware that you can retask as you please.
16. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by ClosedSource · 2010-05-25 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  OK, BUST.
17. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by ClosedSource · 2010-05-25 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  "However, I think we can all agree now that.."
  This is Slashdot. Any sentence that begins with those words is false. With the possible exception of completing the sentence with "our coworkers suck".
18. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Florian+Weimer · 2010-05-25 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  OSI is getting exactly what they pushed: open code tied to closed devices.
  Ten years ago, the FSF did not care about software embedded in devices, either, even though it was a printer which got Stallman started. I'm not even sure if much has changed; to some degree, that's understandable because restrictive hardware environments can make it difficult to empower users to program.
  
  However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
  With the GPLv3, the device vendor can rent the device to you, so that you can perform a service for them (like supplying power and Internet connectivity). In this case, they do not have to provide source code to you, and are even required to slap a very restrictive license on the software ("on terms that prohibit [you] from making any copies of
  [their] copyrighted material outside [your] relationship with [them]").
19. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by jedidiah · 2010-05-25 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > The most popular desktop Unix variant in the world? Oh the horrors!
  Nothing visible or relevant about the platform is actually Unix.
  In the case of the more closed Apple devices, you can't even access that part of the device unless you indulge in a hack that may or may not be illegal under the DMCA.
  All the Unix-ness of MacOS does is gives Apple a shortcut and free R&D. It's like a big fat hunk of corporate welfare. Except it is being extracted directly from the masses rather than going through a government intermediary first.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
20. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Kjella · 2010-05-25 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The most popular desktop Unix variant in the world? Oh the horrors!
  Let me put this as politely as I manage: If all you care about is having your code used by as many as possible, I'm sure Microsoft would take on another unpaid intern. If you know that 99.8% of the people use your code as OS X and 0.2% use it as any of the *BSDs (given desktop market shares of 5% and 0.01% respectively), who are you really working for? Libraries and applications are a bit different, a BSD tool can run alongside a commercial one but you normally just run the one OS.
  I think there's a huge perception gap between the BSD crowd and Apple. The BSD crowd see it like "Oh yeah, we're the CORE. The engine of the car. We're like the most important part of OS X". Apple is in my impression more like "The BSDs? Yeah we got like the concrete foundation from them, the bricks and the I-beams and whatnot. But we did all the design and layout and architecture and decorating to build the things that makes people go wow. The rest is commodities and it made no sense for us to reinvent the wheel."
  That last bit I've heard as an explanation quite often. but to me that's a rather dismal prospect. Products that aren't ever going to make it on their own, that exist only deep down within some other products and that rarely get you the gratitude of anyone. Coders aren't given tasks that are already done, if there's already code to do something they'll get a different task - they don't get slack because of BSD. Customers are so detached from this process they probably don't even know OS X is based on BSD and Apple isn't going to make any PR effort to inform them. Nor would it help them since they can't change OS X anyway. Steve Jobs is probably happy for the lower way costs improve his profit margins though, so he can buy more turtlenecks.
  Yes of course it is open source, the code doesn't go away. But if it hardly sees any use in any other product but OS X, what's the point of it all? Why not just be an employee and get paid to write OS X code? Granted, there are many issues with the GPL but for better and worse it's 100% used in open source software. It's not hiding deep ine bowels of the "About" page and some innards noone will ever see.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
21. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by StayFrosty · 2010-05-25 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Apple uses the XNU kernel--a sort of Mach/BSD hybrid, not the BSD kernel. OS X does, however, borrow a lot of userspace utilities from FreeBSD and NetBSD.
  
  --
  "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
22. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by StayFrosty · 2010-05-25 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Your Chrome browser running on your Android wouldn't be half so nice if not for Apple...
  Since Webkit is a fork of KHTML, that is subject to debate. Rendering with KHTML in Konqueror always worked fine for me long before Apple had anything to do with it. The Gecko rendering engine could have easily been chosen as well if KHTML was not mature enough.
  
  --
  "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
23. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by not-my-real-name · 2010-05-25 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  "However, I think we can all agree now that.."
  This is Slashdot. Any sentence that begins with those words is false. With the possible exception of completing the sentence with "our coworkers suck".
  I'm unemployed you insensitive clod.
  Besides, even when I was employed, none of my coworkers offered me a blowjob.
  
  --
  un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
24. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by DragonWriter · 2010-05-25 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Does that not sound like it hasn't already happened? In 2002, yeah, it sounded stupid
  Uh, no, it didn't. It had already happened then; the description in the essay is exactly what trusted computing was being sold as, by its promoters, to the kinds of companies that would use it to enforce their restrictions, looked at from the consumer's point of view -- it wasn't an extrapolation, just the same description from the consumer perspective.
25. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Darinbob · 2010-05-25 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think some could agree, not all. Getting open source onto mostly closed devices is not completely a negative. It has spread open source, it has given developers more choices, it has given customers more features, and it has given back many improvements to the original sources. Open source should be about sharing quality software, not pushing political views.
26. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Darinbob · 2010-05-25 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Why? How is OS X worse than Mac OS? You would prefer 100% closed vs 100% open, and anything in between is a wussy sellout? Curse Apple for choosing an open source OS, and praise Microsoft for sticking to their proprietary principles.
27. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Darinbob · 2010-05-25 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  It certainly explains why the business world tries to run as far away from open source initiatives as possible. Many will pay good money for software that comes without migraines.
28. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Kjella · 2010-05-25 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Open software is open software. It does not come with any promise that you have hardware that you can retask as you please.
  Perhaps this is why OSI is useless and FSF useful despite the oddities of RMS, it's the same "software you can look at but not touch" all over again. If you have read the story of why RMS created the GPL it was obvious that he wanted it to fix his broken printer, not that other people from other companies could build other printers with the same driver. There's no technical difference between fixing a simple bug and retasking the hardware, the latter is a consequence of the former which was clearly part of the purpose from the very beginning. The current half-open devices are a failure of the spirit of the license, if not the words of the GPLv1/2.
  Remember that the GPLv2 was designed in 1991, before the PGP controversy and long before public signing of anything became common, when encryption was highly guarded "munitions" and only special builds could have more than 40 bit encryption, before the first PlayStation and the rise of closed consoles and gadgets, on Wikipedia there's not a single digital DRM system list going back that far and it certainly was not backed by DMCA-like laws making them a crime to circumvent. They missed it, plain and simple. Just like they missed patent covenants and other trickery, but it was never their purpose to allow it.
  Developers and users come as chicken and egg, it makes sense to develop what you use it and it makes sense to use what gives the users freedom. Some projects now have the luxury of not caring about the GPLv3 because they're way past the chicken and egg and will go on regardless, like for example Linux. But for the users, the GPLv3 is undeniably better so all other things equal they should always go with the GPLv3. In the initial analysis, it doesn't matter where the users are. But eventually if the users choose GPLv3, then users will become developers and write GPLv3 code. Almost everyone is a user before they become a developer, except the preciously few founders.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
29. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by lennier · 2010-05-25 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  "However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices."
  No, we can't.
  Open software is open software. It does not come with any promise that you have hardware that you can retask as you please.
  Right, and (sigh) because of the existence of this viewpoint, now I understand why Richard Stallman was always so careful to distinguish Free Software from merely Open Source.
  Freedom, in the Free Software sense, is about the positive rights of the user - it starts by asking 'what can the user do to change their system?' under the assumption that the user being able to change their system is a good and right and creative thing which adds value to everyone. Obviously, from this mindset, restricting the hardware, while it may not technically be a 'software' issue, is very much antithetical to the spirit of user freedom and will result (as a byproduct) in loss of creativity and utility to the whole economy. Because Free Software assumes that the users are the drivers of innovation, not vendors, and that ultimately the creation of all software must devolve from a market base to voluntary user-led projects, at all point pushing creativity and control to the edges.
  Open Source, on the other hand, focuses purely and narrowly on a specific technical issue - the availability of software source code - and refuses to look at hardware. Because it comes from a different viewpoint, which sees the user desire for freedom and the vendor's desire for control as something more like counterbalanced forces, both of which contribute but neither of which should dominate the exchange. And while it does honestly value openness, it tends to be more 'pragmatic' and sympathetic to the idea that value, creativity and innovation really comes from the vendors, operating under commercial competition, and so tends to give vendors more slack when they want to restrict things on the grounds that 'well they do need to make money, and we don't want to become fanatical extremists about this 'user freedom' thing. We still need vendors to make choices for us and we'll partner with them.'
  The difference is more than a mere subtlety. While both groups are talking about software, they tend to agree. But on issues like hardware and the rise of cloud systems, the Open Source people are more likely to become irritated with even raising the issue of freedom - until they've been bitten by an actual threat. They walk right into the BitKeepers and Facebooks and GIFs and H.264s and Apple App Stores of the world and don't notice the potential for exploitation until it actually happens. This is because of their pragmatic 'loose consensus and working code' attitude - while the Free Software people, being philosophers and lawyers, seem fluffier but are are a bit more imaginative and proactive in their sensing of potential threats and exploits, having run through these scenarios in their minds.
  It does take both types to get things done, but we really should be paying more attention to the (sigh) Stallmans of the world, because despite his bad personal habits, he really is right.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
30. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-05-25 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  "However, I think we can all agree now that.."
  This is Slashdot. Any sentence that begins with those words is false.
  I vehemently disagree.
31. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by TheTurtlesMoves · 2010-05-25 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  You know the people who released their software--the ones that did the work don't care, or are even happy. Thats why they use a BSD license.
  
  Or do you believe that the people writing the code don't have the right to release the code as they see fit?
  
  When i release code under a BSD license or even public domain, its so people like Apple have the freedom to take my code, change it a bit, make money and not release the changes. I *want* to give them and others that freedom.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
32. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by PipsqueakOnAP133 · 2010-05-26 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda like the 4.4 BSD TCP/IP protocol stack is a perfect example to not chose GPL.
33. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by PipsqueakOnAP133 · 2010-05-26 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hold on there, you assume that all people care about the same things.
  For example, a girl I knew loves her BMW M3, not because it's an M3, but because it has the BMW logo on the front. It could have been a 318 for all she cared. At the same time, I think it's cool because it's a M3 with all the nice engineering tweaking that went into it that makes it special to me.
  Non-techie Mac-users will never care about what BSD is or what GPL is, or whether or not you can install an OpenSSH server on it. Advertise it and they'll go "huh? where's the lickable goodness?" Point is, they won't care. Heck, more mysterious acronyms might even scare them off. Marketing at Apple knows that.
  All the techie Mac-users already know because, well, they're tech oriented and if you don't know BSD, you might as well give up your geek card right there any then.
  As for the BSD-proponents, sometimes some people don't care about having their name in big lights. Sometimes it's all about standing back, grinning, and thinking to yourself, "I built that shit and the whole world works because of it."
  What is the point of open source? It's to help others be more productive by advancing the field using what they know instead of reinventing the wheel every time. If Apple had to build an entire POSIX-compliant OS from scratch before making the GUI, would that really help the users? To be saying that it's unfair that Apple simply acknowledges FreeBSD as a userland foundation is a little strange to me when it's not even certain that the authors think the same. Apple met the license. And the authors can say, if they choose, "yup, we helped make that happen too." The alternative is, well, do we want to return to the time where every Unix-ish OS was built up from scratch by their individual vendors with almost compatible tools? My guess is no.
  To all that worked on the BSD tcpip stack that the whole internet is based off: It is pretty darn obvious that your talent makes the world go round. Thanks once again.
34. Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed by Russ+Nelson · 2010-05-26 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps this is why OSI is useless and FSF useful despite the oddities of RMS, it's the same "software you can look at but not touch" all over again.
  Sorry, stinking load of crap. Even when somebody takes some BSD-licensed code and does nifty magic with it under a proprietary license, the BSD-licensed code they started from remains available to you. So, no "software you can look at but not touch". If someone takes some reciprocal licensed code, and does nifty magic with it, they have to release it with the full rights they had. So, no "software you can look at but not touch".
  It's the enemies of freedom, the enemies of openness, that claim that open source code is "code under glass". If it's open source, you can get the source, period. If it's open source, you can modify it, period. If it's open source, you can share it, period. There might be constraints on sharing, like the GPL's requirement that you share source whenever you share binaries, or the QPL's requirement that you distribute modifications as pristine source plus patches.
  
  --
  Don't piss off The Angry Economist
OSI by nomadic · 2010-05-25 03:07 · Score: 1

The thing that always bothered me about OSI was the pomposity. They come out late in the game, years after the creation of the open source process, after Linux, Apache, etc. are all mature, and then have tried to take credit for basically everything open source since. Then have the nerve to frequently post on slashdot how horrible it is that they're not recognized for their tremendous accomplishments, and that anyone who is skeptical of OSI's claims is just completely ignorant of the history of the organization.
1. Re:OSI by ClosedSource · 2010-05-25 05:39 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Right. In contrast to the known humility of GNU, FSF and RMS.
2. Re:OSI by nomadic · 2010-05-25 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Right. In contrast to the known humility of GNU, FSF and RMS.
  
  Yet (a) they actually did start back in the olden days, and have done a tremendous amount, and (b) get called out as arrogant all the time. Arrogance is a little easier to take from someone who actually is almost as good/important/influential as they claim to be.
3. Re:OSI by Russ+Nelson · 2010-05-26 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's horrible that we're not recognized for our tremendous accomplishments. Anyone who is skeptical of our claims is just completely ignorant of the history of the organization.
  Errr, how many times do I need to post this to meet your definition of "frequently"? I wouldn't want you to be wrong in the Internet.
  
  --
  Don't piss off The Angry Economist
BSD is good for some things, but not this: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

The quote in question:

I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
BSD leaves us with completely closed devices (OSX, i, etc.) not exactly the solution to 'half-open devices' that GPLv3 advocates are looking for.
1. Re:BSD is good for some things, but not this: by Sir_Lewk · 2010-05-25 03:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think we can all agree now
  The point is, we can't. I'm not saying the BSD license is a "solution" to the "half-open devices 'problem'". I'm saying BSD advocates don't view it as a problem.
  Furthermore, OSX is not completely closed: see Darwin.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
2. Re:BSD is good for some things, but not this: by drinkypoo · 2010-05-26 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore, OSX is not completely closed: see Darwin.
  Darwin is inferior to FreeBSD. All the interesting parts of OSX are closed. OSX is an indictment against the BSD license, not support for it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
OSI Foundation? by anexkahn · 2010-05-25 03:40 · Score: 2

I was thinking OSI Model when I ready the title of the article....a little confusing.

--
Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
1. Re:OSI Foundation? by lennier1 · 2010-05-25 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Typical layer 8 problem.
2. Re:OSI Foundation? by bosef1 · 2010-05-25 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  I kept wondering who wanted to defund the Office of Scientific Intelligence, especially after all of Steve Austin's work.
Re:FTFS: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, no, US fixed it. French borrowed it from Latin (licentia). When French borrows a word from Latin that like licentia ends in -entia, it becomes -ence. When English borrows a word from Latin that like licentia ends in -entia, it becomes -ense (sentia). But in this case, British borrowed the word from French, while Webster (as he did with color and meter) went back to the Latin original, defrancifying the word.
Our current situation... by Chibi+Merrow · 2010-05-25 03:56 · Score: 1

However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
I disagree. I much prefer our current situation of "half-open" devices that actually exist and that I can use over the mythical fully open devices that apparently are used by the tooth fairy and santa claus.

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
1. Re:Our current situation... by Darkness404 · 2010-05-25 04:02 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There are a lot of fully open devices. Or at least a ton more open than other electronics because you can run whatever apps you feel like on there, change the OS, and do both without jailbreaking or otherwise having to resort to other methods.
  
  There is the GP2x which is similar to a PSP, now the Pandora, the Nexus One, Google Dev phone, etc.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:FTFS: by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2010-05-25 04:00 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm sceptical of this spelling.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Re:I agree! by jedidiah · 2010-05-25 05:35 · Score: 1

Is the GPL redundant? If not, then you are just being a lame license troll.
It may pain you to consider this but some coders actually choose the GPL. It's their call, not yours.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:FTFS: by mcgrew · 2010-05-25 05:39 · Score: 1

Awww, where's your sence of humure?

--
Free Martian Whores!
At last! Common Ground! by ClosedSource · 2010-05-25 05:41 · Score: 1

Redefining well-known words and acronyms is something the OSI and FSF can agree upon.
OSI relevancy by triffid_98 · 2010-05-25 05:43 · Score: 2, Funny

I respectfully disagree. Oscar Goldman's organization is still quite relevant in the fields of hostage negotiation, Bigfoot sightings and Russia oriented plot-lines.
Retire NOSA! by paxcoder · 2010-05-25 08:54 · Score: 1

Really, a license that prohibits integration of third-party code is not free software (it renders improved NOSA code non-free).
I argue that's against freedom 3:

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Re:FTFS: by lennier · 2010-05-25 10:17 · Score: 1

Our neighbours are showing their true colours.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:FTFS: by gmhowell · 2010-05-25 11:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, and in the early 40's, we fucked enough of your women while helping you dipshits correct Chamberlain's mistake that you regained a little genetic diversity.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:FTFS: by Nizumzen · 2010-05-25 15:56 · Score: 1

The majority of Americans came from Europe. Unless you are talking about Native Americans it would have had exactly zero effect on our genetic makeup.
OSI Paperwork Believed Current by WebMink · 2010-05-26 07:05 · Score: 1

We believe everything is now up to date - the IRS filings were part of the same issue we inherited from the early days of OSI. We (mainly OSI's Treasurer Danese Cooper actually) worked on these issues last year with the help of DLA Piper (law firm donating their service) and today we are completely in the good graces of both the IRS and the California State Franchise Tax Board.
If you are aware of other issues that haven't popped up on our radar, please tell osi (at) opensource (dot) org so we can fix them. I realise that's not so much fun as posting them on Slashdot first, but it will help get things fixed faster just like filing a fix on Subversion fixes software faster than writing to The Register about it.
1. Re:OSI Paperwork Believed Current by iggymanz · 2010-05-26 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  these issue were not "posted on slashdot first", the OSI was contacted repeatedly about them by concerned people over the years. yes, years.
  and not inherited "from early days", OSI was in compliance in its early years, then dropped the ball later, even to May 2009. I have proof.
2. Re:OSI Paperwork Believed Current by WebMink · 2010-05-26 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Your description does not match any of the facts available to me as a new Board member, so I suggest you contact me via e-mail: webmink (at) opensource (dot) org
3. Re:OSI Paperwork Believed Current by Russ+Nelson · 2010-05-26 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Please send me the email addresses that contacted OSI "repeatedly ... over the years". I will check our email logs and report back here. If you don't step up with you facts, then I will accuse you of dealing it out with a large shovel. Fair enough?
  
  --
  Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Bruce Perens did not invent Open Source by drinkypoo · 2010-05-26 15:07 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, drinky, but your poo is still stinky. Open Source, per the Open Source Definition, requires redistribution rights. But I admire your creativity with the facts. Say, are you still a member of the Flat Earth Society?
Are you one of my common trolls? For anyone interested in my position on this issue, see my journal entry on why neither Bruce Perens nor any other member of the OSI is entitled to rewrite the meaning of the phrase "Open Source".

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"