Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Bruce Perens Answers Open Source License Questions
-------------------------
From: Jason Hammerschmidt jasonh@cyberplex.com
Open Source Licensing, and the latest craze to go public (such as RedHat's IPO) sometimes have conflicting values. When public, you have to cater to your stock holders, this can easily conflict with the open source communities goals. Although you can build a business model around secondary and tertiary services such as support and manuals, etc. there will still be a conflict of interest at the center of it all. Most important, the philosophy and integrity of our community can be easily compromised and undermined by stock holders. The fact that our community has the same ability to acquire stock means little unless we own the majority of stock, and this is unlikely to happen. What, Bruce Perens, is your view on this subject? And how can we ensure the safety of our beliefs?
yes I know this is two questions :) and I also know this isn't a strictly licensing question, but it is very closely related.
Jason,
You'll notice that a some of the companies that are already participating in free software development have been public-stock companies for a long time: IBM, and Apple, for example. Yet, these companies found a way to participate in Open Source. In IBM's case, it's making something of research-derived products it might not have been able to continue in development or market otherwise. In Apple's case, they're attempting to keep up with Linux - truly a daunting task - by being open too. Also, they are trying to return benefit they've already gotten from the community, and they might be able to open some secondary markets in the future from ports of their free software. You'll notice that when we had a problem with Apple's and IBM's original licenses, we used publicity to influence them. Public-stock companies are very sensitive to publicity because their stock price can go up or down depending on what people are saying about them. If their strategy is one that will prevent them from getting effective participation from the community, that won't help their bottom line and the market will notice.
There is no conflict of interest here - it's a quid-pro-quo. If the participation of the community is not important enough, the company will exit the free software arena.
Every for-profit company that participates in free software development will have to find a balance between its own needs and those of the community if it is to participate at all. I have a scale that I use to describe free software participants that runs from benefactor to symbiote to parisite. I'd put Red Hat in the symbiote position right now, NASA is a benefactor, and the parisites know who they are :-). Parisites eventually lose because the community is too eager to help out their competition.
----------------------------
from adamc@email.unc.edu
To what extent have the various "free" and not-so-free licenses been evaluated by people with serious legal expertise? I hear charges against, e.g. the GPL that it won't stand up in court, that it's too vague, and other things of that ilk. Has the FSF ever had a crackerack patent (or whatever area of the law is involved) go over their license with a fine-toothed comb?
Adam,
The GPL has actually had a good deal of evaluation. Richard Stallman has an MIT law professor who helps him, and there has been a law school thesis and some private analysis.There are definitely holes, but there's also evidence that it could be enforced. Ironicaly, the UCITA, a proposed U.S. "uniform state law" that poses us problems because places a ban on reverse-engineering, also has provisions that make the GPL and other free software licenses much eaiser to enforce.
One of the biggest problems with the GPL and all other free software licenses concerns the definition of a derived work. The definition of a derived work in copyright law is mostly concerned with print, film, and sound works, and was formulated before software came along. Thus, it doesn't say anything about how reference should be treated. For example, if you copy my function into your own program, it's a derived work. If you simply call my function without copying it, it's not a derived work according to U.S. copyright law, although you are having the exact same effect that you would if you'd copied the function. It's trivial to make any program a shared library or a callable object through object brokers like CORBA or COM, so you can easily circumvent license restrictions about derived works if you are considering copyright law alone. However, licenses are a combination of copyright law and contract law, and under contract law you can be restricted from performing certain activities that the software author might consider the creation of a derived work, activities that you would otherwise be permitted to do under copyright law. And of course, if you don't except the license, you have no right to use or copy the software at all. The problem is that the GPL doesn't really define what those activities are. That should change.
However, we don't generally have to go to court to enforce licenses, so they aren't getting tested for enforcibility in court, which is the only real test. Publicity is our primary enforcement tool, and it's surprising just how effective that has been so far.
I am soliciting attorneys to do pro bono work (donated work for the public good) to help address problems with licenses. There's a BOF about this at the LinuxWorld conference in August.
---------------------------
from parkerd@tegris.com
Hi Bruce,
I recently started programming open source software for Windows (due to my unfamiliarity with Linux programming), and organized various OSS projects under the title of "Neon Goat Productions". However, I don't feel that I have a good grasp on the ideas behind some more advanced licensing techniques. First of all, if I release software under the GNU GPL, or other licenses, do I (as the sole owner of the copyright) have the option to change the license later on, either to another OSS license, or a closed source license? I don't intend on doing anything like this, but I definitely want to have the ability to control the future of my work. Also, if I release a project under the GPL, am I allowed to use portions of my GPL'd code in an independent, commercial program? I don't want to end up rewriting the same code for another job, just because the licenses aren't exactly the same. Finally, I am a bit unclear on releasing software under two licenses (for example, having the choice between either the GPL or the Artistic licenses). Since the Artistic license is less restrictive than the GPL, what would be the difference if the software was only released under the Artistic license instead of having an either/or clause?
Sincerely,
David Parker
David,
If you are the copyright holder of a program, you may issue that program under any number of licenses simultaneously. While you can't take the GPL back once you release a GPL-ed version, there is nothing that compels you to release later versions under the GPL. But this is all ignoring the issue of other people's contributions to your program.
The situation is much more complicated when other people contribute. They own the copyright to their modifications.
You can deal with this in several ways if you want to keep the option to distribute your work under a different license:
1. Simply don't use their contributions in your commercial product.
2. Insist that they sign the copyright of the modifications over to you before you before you will put any of their modifications in your main source thread. This is what FSF does, so that they have the option to revise the GPL later on without having to go to everybody who made a modification and ask their permission.
3. Use a license like the Netscape Public License that gives you the right to distribute contributed modifications under other licenses. Note, however, that the NPL only requires that for modifications to your files, and that if somone creates a separate file and links it in, they are not required to give you the right to distribute that file under other licenses. Of course you can write your own license that says something different.
Regarding the Artistic license, I'd suggest that you do dual-license with the GPL if you choose to use the Artistic, becuase that makes it absolutely clear that your work can be united with other work that is already under the GPL to make one product. I also don't like the language of the Artistic license. I discuss why near the end of my article on the OSD.
-------------------------
from: Mike Moses" moses@pobox.com
Would it be rude, inconsiderate, or copyleft infringing for a group of midnight coders to gather together collectively and form a company with a name like 'Open Source Consultants' or some other derivative with 'Open Source' in the name?
Mike,
If you use the name Open Source in the title of an organization, that organization should use only software licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition, and not any "Open Source Definition", I mean the one that the Debian folks and I wrote and that we all know and love :-). I'd object to an "Open Source Magazine" that advertised non-Open-Source products, for example, simply because it would act to confuse people about what is Open Source and what isn't. That would be inconsiderate. It wouldn't be copyright-infringing because we're talking about a trademark, not a copyright. Also, the status of that trademark is rather iffy right now: it's still a trademark, but currently has no federal registration pending.
------------------------------
from: John L Grantham grantha@hannover.sgh-net.de
I note that the companies that you say deserve praise for their efforts, Apple and IBM, are both hardware companies that in effect happen to produce software. In both cases, they make far more money from their hardware than they do software, so in effect they have less to lose by giving an open source license a shot, but have much to gain in the form of increased sales of hardware.
But what about companies that are primarily in software? How do you see them making money off of open source, when that is after all their main motive--earning cash? In other words, why buy an open source package when you can download or copy it for free? Finally, are there any large "traditional" software companies (ones from before open source became a buzzword) that you see making commendable moves like IBM and Apple? Best regards, John a.k.a. Ethelred
John,
Obviously, it's easy for companies that vend free software as an accessory to hardware to make money, because it's a lot easier to copy a disk than it is to copy a PC! Companies like VA Linux Systems come to mind.
If your business must primarily be software, not support, not anything else, you can't make everything free. This, for example, is the strategy of Sendmail Inc., which makes proprietary add-ons for the free sendmail mail delivery agent. Digital Creations, makers of the Zope web content management software, aren't quite a software pure-play: They give away their core software, and they sell services to customize that core to vertical markets for specific customers, newspapers for example. Some of that customization work may not make its way back into the free product. They have also announced some proprietary add-ons for Zope.
Yes, there is a large traditional software company making a commendable move. Unfortunately, I can't tell you who they are yet. It's not nice for me to pre-empt other people's announcements - I did that to Troll Tech once and they got (justifiably) very annoyed with me.
----------------------
from: Bill Gladen
With all of the companies that are coming up with Open Source Definition compliant licenses, it is getting difficult to keep track of what the various licenses actually contain. Is there any work being done on a template license that companies could just post a delta of?; For instance, if you had an Open Source Base License O, which contained clauses A-N, then companies could just draft their license which stated "This license modifies O in the following ways: remove clause B, replace clause C with clause C', and add clause T."
I am certainly encouraging new entries to use one of the existing licenses rather than complicate the situation with another incompatible license. However, when the choice is having them make their own license or not release the software under an Open-Source-Definition-compliant license at all, I'd obviously rather see them release the software.
We are still in the learning period where companies are figuring out how to meet their own needs while participate in free software while meeting their own needs at the same time. This is sort of winding down now, and in a year or so we'll be able to get together and draft some standard licenses. I'd prefer not to have companies release deltas to a license, becuase that isn't much better than having them make their own licenses if the delta gets big. I'd just want some check-boxes for license options that would all be qualified under the Open Source Definition.
-------------------------
from: Corinna Cohn gemini@indy.net
Amiga, Inc. has recently anounced that they will use Linux as the kernel for their new operating system. They have said that they will make heavy modifications to the kernel. As far as I know, this is the first highly adultered distribution of Linux. Can you explain, of the changes they will make, what parts of the source code must be released back into the community?
Thank you,
Corinna Cohn
Unfortunately, I have not yet been contacted by Amiga, Inc., so I can't say for sure what they are doing. If they make modifications to the kernel in the form of modularized device drivers, they can probably keep those proprietary. I'd hate to see it, though. I'd prefer to see them contribute all of their modifications back to the community, and there is little reason for them not to, since they are selling hardware and their device drivers would probably not run on anything else. If they modify Linux in general, not just the device drivers, they are compelled to distribute the source for those modifications.
It would be silly for them to embrace Linux without the benefits of free software. That would be missing the point. I don't think they'd do anything that dumb.
-----------------------
from D. Dale Gulledge ddg@americasm01.nt.com
One of the hot issues in open source development in general right now is the issue of licensing an open source project in such a way as to maintain a profitable niche for the company that created the product. The issue is a hot one for me because a former boss of mine approached me for suggestions on how to handle a project as open source within a corporate environment.
As an example, Troll Tech attempted to deal with the controversy over the non-free status of Qt with their QPL. My own interpretation of their solution and that of other companies is that they make their work free for use in other open source projects but not for commercial use. Much of the controversy has arisen from where the boundary is drawn, since there are several companies selling distributions of and support for open source software. Neither those companies nor a significant portion of the open source community wants to see a license that would prohibit them from offering distribution and support services.
My question is, what is the best model for an open source license to be used for software produced within a corporate environment? The problem is twofold. First, the license must be acceptable to the open source community or it is a failure both as an open source project and as a component of a business case. Second, there must be a business case for it.
--
Dale Gulledge, Sr. Developer, Nortel Networks
Also, the author of the Emacs Calendar/Diary Desk Calendar formatting code, team leader for the Esperanto translation team for the Free Translation Project, and host of the Linux Users' Group of Rochester.
I know both sides of the issue, but I don't yet have the answer.
Dale,
If I were doing it, I'd release my software under the GPL, and I'd also offer it under a commercial license. This part's a bit complicated: I'd insist that people who wanted their modifications to go into my main source thread must sign a separate and independent copyright for those modifications over to me, while they'd also maintain their own copyright. In other words, each party would own the modification and would have the right to do anything they wanted with that modification without consulting the other party. That way, I'd have the right to issue modifications under my commercial license, but I'd also commit to release all modifications that were submitted to me under the GPL. Becuase I'm using a split copyright rather than license terms to get the rights to the modifications, I'm not putting any odious terms on code that other people write. I'd continue to be an active maintainer and architect of the product so that people would want to submit their modifications to me.
In my opinion, this is the best of all worlds. The software is always available under the GPL. It's also available under a commercial license from which I can generate revenue. My original contribution continues to be a big enough part that it doesn't make sense for someone else to come out with a clone, but if I ever go out of business or lose interest in the program, someone else can make a commercial clone, writing out my contribution, and can get the modifications from their contributors under the same terms that I did. Until I do go out of business, there's not much reason for contributors to deal with anyone else.
Circumvention is an important principle in free software. I feel OK about Red Hat selling my software becuase I can always circumvent them and sell it myself. The circumvention provision here might make developers more willing to contribute to a commercial product.
Sorry if this is a bit deep. I'd be happy to discuss it in more detail.
------------------------------
from: Larry_Harkrider@radian.com
What licensing issues apply to older software written by now-defunct companies? Is there a point at which such software enters the public domain?
Software eventually enters the public domain, but it takes so long that no computer that can execute it The situation with software from defunct companies is a sad one. Someone always owns it, because in the case of bankruptcy, there's always a creditor (generally more than one) who assumes the property of the bankrupt company. So, the situation is that your old license still applies but you probably can't get any service or upgrades or enforce your warranty, and you might not even be able to establish who owns the software without an expensive legal search. But you still can't give away copies of that software without infringing on someone's property rights, and that someone might come after you to enforce them.
Big customers have tried insisting that their vendors place the source code in escrow, so that the customer will have rights to that source code if the company goes out of business or declines to fulfill certain responsibilities like upgrades and warranty service. That works great if you wield enough power that your software vendor will negociate with you, for example if you are the only customer for a particular product or if you are paying a very large sum. It doesn't work for anyone else. It would be nice if there were laws about source-code escrow that protected the little guy. It would also be nice if the terms of copyrights didn't run so long and thus work did enter the public domain within one person's lifetime. Every 20 years, the international copyright convention meets and makes the copyright term 20 years longer. This is an abuse of the intent of the original copyright law, which was meant to exchange legal protection for your work for your releasing that work into the public domain eventually.
Hey, these were great questions! I enjoyed this, thanks!
Bruce Perens
Editor's note: Bruce Perens' latest venture is the Web site TECHNOCRAT.NET
Somehow an archive of open source thoughts seems to make more sense on a seperate site or at least seperate section.
Are there any open source FAQ's other than this one on www.opensource.org?
Calling it a benefactor is a lower rating then calling it a symbiote.
Symbioses (like I can spell) is mutual benefit - two-way benefactors. Not only is linux a benefactor to rh (by linux, am referring to oscommunity), but rh is a benefactor to linux - both are benficiaries.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
> /usr/games/fortune -m lawyer|less
/usr/share/games/fortunes ; less law
:))
cd
:)
(yeah yeah, offtopic
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Anyone who posts major content articles that get lead slots and who doesn't use a spell checker is not being professional. I'm not talking about follow-ups. I'm talking about major new content, like the Perens article.
That's pretty harsh on RMS, IMHO...but maybe deservedly so...I don't know the man. Plus I wouldn't say the GPL is immoral...if you don't like it, then don't write or re-use GPLed code. Dems da breaks, as they say. At least the source code is available at all. That's better than completely closed source...though maybe not as nice as completely open source...except for the author that wants his code used that way.
As far as I'm aware, the GPL hasn't really been tested in the courts...and software licenses in general haven't undergone very much rigorous testing, either. But I'd agree that one line of code wouldn't contaminate a million. Part of the reason I asked my original question is that I think 'derivitive work' needs to be very carefully defined in the GPL. I hope the new version does so.
Anybody have a link for the text of the LGPL? A cursory search hasn't turned anything up, and I don't have loads of time right now to hunt for it. Thanks in advance.
The difference is that, as someone else said, NASA would exist without Linux. Red Hat wouldn't.
I'm not going to bother with the same terminology (symbiote/symbiont), since I don't know the words to use for all parties in a symbiotic relationship (parasite/host is a better known relationship, sadly).
But, to explain, Red Hat lives because of Linux, and to large extent, Linux is what it is because of Red Hat (Gnome, big money contributors, jobs for so many kernel hackers, etc.). That, I think, is the relationship Bruce Perense means by calling Red Hat a symbiote (rather that term is accurate or not).
Walnut Creek, on the other hand, can probably be considered to be a benefactor to Linux by Bruce Perens' system, by (for instance) hosting the Slackware distribution, selling the official CD's, and mirroring so many Linux-focused or Linux-related FTP sites. They certainly do gain money from selling Slackware CD's, but that's not their business. If Patrick Volkerding stopped putting together Slackware tomorrow, Walnut Creek would go on. Ditto with NASA.
--Matthew
I think maybe there's a language barrier here, I can't see any difficulty in taking something that's freely given. Couldn't steal it, but take it sure, easier than taking something the current possessor doesn't want you to have. Does "take" have some sort of negative connotations where you come from or what is it you're getting at?
Am I to take it that publicly stating a moral position is what you mean by boasting of morals or could you clarify whom you mean and what you're thinking of as boasting?
"This is a facile lie. If someone uses your (modified) code and
don't release it at all, the users aren't getting any benefits of
what *THEY* wrote. Not you. They. It's none of your damned business what they do with their own work. You only get to say something about your own. Legislating morality is a busybody thing to do that really pisses people off. "
So it's none of my business how people licence their code that is based on or includes my code, but somehow it is your business to say how I should licence my code? What are you on?
Okay, I'll licence my programs as I see fit (GPL), and you're free to be as pissed off as you like, I'll take that as punishment for my appalling actions.
Get over the emotional reaction - they are taking part in a symbiosis between a company and the free software community. That is not to label them as less than a benefactor, it is simply descriptive of the relationship.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You can't take away my freedom to use those programs so long as I do not modify them or deny people their source. It offends me that you should try.
If I write a shell script, it's not a derived work. This is the same issue with libraries.
i think youre wrong, possibly misguided there. when i write free software i see a niche, something i want very badly, and which i can fill by writing my own code (and there is no code available which does what i want it to do). I dont write free software to subsidise/give something back/improve my moral standing etc.etc..i do it because i *like* coding and i *want* some functionality which doesnt exist yet. The fact that i release it under the GPL is becuase i would hate to see someone else make the effort to repeat the process which i just completed.
By reading this post, you agree to donate all of you assets into my bank account.
I agree I don't agree
Thank you for choosing I agree (I prefer direct deposit)... now continue...
It's trivial to make any program a shared library or a callable object through object brokers like CORBA or COM, so you can easily circumvent license restrictions about derived works if you are considering copyright law alone. However, licenses are a combination of copyright law and contract law, and under contract law you can be restricted from performing certain activities that the software author might consider the creation of a derived work, activities that you would otherwise be permitted to do under copyright law. And of course, if you don't except the license, you have no right to use or copy the software at all.
This has always been my qualm with the GPL. The restrictions on derivative works requires more legal power than copyright law alone provides. Enter contract law. Unfortunately contract law doesn't apply here. Reading the GPL doesn't mean you agree to the contract. Using the software doesn't mean you agree to the contract. As an example, clicking "I accept" when the Windows EULA window pops up isn't a legally binding contract.
Even if that fails and somehow the contract becomes legal, all you would need to do, at least in the United States, would be to get an under 18 year old person to modify the text of the GPL to whatever you wanted. It is illegal for a minor to enter into a legal contract.
Be wary folks. The GPL is on shaky ground in the 'derivative works' area.
This page explains the problem more clearly.
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
Maybe he's a professor in the MIT Technology and Policy Program? Sounds like Open Source Liscensing would be right up their alley. See http://web.mit.edu/tpp/www/. Also, there is a directory structure built for the tlp (technology in/and law program?), but nothing substantial has been built out.
--Alex
Um, Bruce, the term you want is "symbiant." Check out any general biology text, or think about the Greek....
First, thank you Bruce and Neuroid for your helpful answers.
But I must take issue with this:
They take value from the community
How can you take value from a community like ours? Everyone fully owns their copy of a free program, and copies cost near-zero resources to make. Red Hat took their easily-had, fully-owned copy of, say, wu_ftpd, and made it easier for me to use. The creator of wu_ftpd still has his or her original source tree. (No functions or variables were harmed in the making of this RPM.)
It's information. You can give without losing, accept without depriving others. Red Hat (indeed, any free software VAR) is only adding value (more free software, tools to make free software more convenient, support to make it more trustworthy, et c.).
I encourage all of you to 'take' from me as many copies of Gzilla as will fit on your storage systems. Go ahead -- send patches, make an RPM, put it on a CD. See if I care. ;)
(FYI, I am an intellectual property attorney, but that is no guarantee that I'm right in any of my conclusions. Don't rely on any of this -- see your own attorney.)
In a software license agreement, if a term like "derived work" is not defined, I would assume that most courts would assume that it meant the same as the copyright term-of-art "Derivative Work". That term is defined in 17 USC Section 101 as:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Okay, clear as mud.
The problem is that with software it is difficult to draw the idea/expression dichotomy that is at the heart of copyright law. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. If you take that expression and change it, you probably have a derivative work (i.e. translate it to another language, make a movie of it, etc.). If you take the ideas from a work, and incorporate them in another work, the result is not a derivative work (think Romeo and Juliet -> West Side Story [and yes, I realize that Romeo and Juliet is not copyrighted]). In cases where there are few ways of expressing an idea (how many ways can you write a while loop?), the idea and expression are said to be "merged", and that particular expression is not protected by copyright. In software, much of the source code (to my way of thinking) is likely covered by this merger doctrine.
I tend to think that translating C code to pseudo-code is a lot like extracting the idea from a particular expression. Creating new C code from the pseudo-code (if the pseudo-code is really just the "idea") should constitute a new, non-derivative work. It is a difficult call, though, because (simply) copyright law was not designed for software, and it's doctrines do not fit well.
Anyway, I am aware that I rambled, and I can see that I have strayed from the point at least a few times. But it is Friday afternoon, and I am too tired to go back and edit my work.
-Steve
(Too tired to think up a snappy sig-line)
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
I like the idea of a reader generated interview. Now let's invite someone interesting for a change. Any suggestions?
It's Columbia.
Parisite is a funny way to spell Parisian.
The GPL does not dictate terms of usage. It is not a contract. I realize this annoys you, but that doesn't change the reality. I can use GPL'd programs on a for-profit CD, and not give away the source to the aggregated software. Same with libraries. Get over it. No one is modifying your work. If what you want is a licence that says "you can't make money with this", then you'll have to use something other than the GPL.
Good sentiment. Too bad it's not also the FSF's position. If avoiding recreating the wheel were there goal, they wouldn't take the contrary-to-sanity position on libraries.
Is there a lisense I can use that stops people from making money from my free software, or can I just add that to the version of the GPL I use? I didn't think they could use GPLware to make money. This really bothers me.
if you dont like the GPL, dont use software built under the GPL..most of us use the GPL, whether viral or not, because we want to stop twits like you from abusing our code and locking it up in stupid proprietary software.
I think this post by Roblimo sets the record for the most obvious spelling errors in a Slashdot article.
given the length of a good many of the lines, use lynx to view this
This doesn't mean I'm thrilled with NASA's patent licensing policies, but they are a different sort of entity from Red Hat.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Are you still missing the point? Aggregation is not viral. There's nothing "locked up" by aggregating. No one has touched your code. No one has hidden your code. No one has denied enhancements to your code. You're not arguing the point.
I can use GPL'd software as part of a commercial product and sell it and not give away the source so long as "part of" really means something other than cutting and pasting. If I write a program that call GNU grep, my program is not infected. If I write a program that calls GNU's regex library, my program is not infected. If I cut and paste the code, it is.
Why does Netscape have to format things like shit. This article is 8 screens wide, pertty annoying to try and read.
As for the whole "open source" thing, I notice you didn't mention Bruce Perens -- regardless of whether he supports it now, he helped start it. Give credit where it is due
--Matthew
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Eric "Curly Brace" Raymond
Richard "Square Bracket" Stallman
Larry "Vertical Bar" Wall
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Are you saying that if I use a search & replace script to reverse all the variable names (names -> seman) that it wouldn't be the same work? Yipe!
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Heh, I use lynx fairly often because it just makes pages look much more sane. I was using lynx and didn't even notice that anything was messed up except that there didn't seem to be any line breaks between questions. Heh, images on the web are just a fad. ;-)
'nuff said ;)
Most users of free software, in their role of users, are "parasites". Most of them are not confined to that role, but also play other roles.
Your friendly dog can also be seen to play several different roles with different "status". As a consumer of dog-food, he is a parasite. As a disposer of excess food, he is a symbiont. As a guardian of the portal... if that's the mailman, then he's a parasite (i.e., he fulfills his function, but not yours), if that's cousin Jean, then he's a symbiont (You want her to be greeted fulsomely, but you are a bit shy).
Perhaps it isn't proper to divide thing up quite this finely.
Users, as a group, are the reason that free software gets written. Sometimes the only target audience is the original programmer, but if he didn't plan on using it, then he wouldn't have written it.
Users, as a group, are the reason that free software is released. If the author didn't want others to use it, then he wouldn't have released it.
Different authors may have different reasons for releasing the software. Some may desire prestige. Some may want to get support in fixing bugs (or even completing the original design).
Most, probably, have multiple reasons, from a desire to shine in front of their friends, to the hope for a job offer from a major software house. To varying degrees of intensity.
Think of what the terms mean as points defining the edge (or centroid) of a concept in multi-dimensional space, and of actual entities as following paths, sometimes nearer to one of the points (say "At this moment, he is closer to being a symbiont than to any of the other points [i.e., concepts]"), and sometimes nearer to another.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The GPL is not a contract. There is no quid-pro-quo. The entire line of "reasoning" is flawed. The proper use of a program does not cause infection. The proper use of a library is to be called. It has no other purpose. If you don't copy it into your program and change its source, but just call it through COM or whatever, it is not a derived work, and Bruce admits it. His grasping for a "contract" where there clearly is none is a sad act of a desperate man.
Bruce is an inveterate murderer of the English language, but that doesn't mean that he's always wrong. I don't know what this "symbiant" thing is that you've invented:
% look symbi | fmt
symbiogenesis symbiogenetic symbiogenetically symbion symbiont symbiontic
symbionticism symbiosis symbiot symbiote symbiotic symbiotically
symbiotics symbiotism symbiotrophic
You write: "it's Bruce not Pruce, and when used with an apostrophe its Perens' not Peren's" But you're wrong about a zillion times. Your second "its" is wrong. And it's "Perens's" in the genitive form according to Strunk and White. An exception is made for forms such as "in Jesus' name", but I wasn't aware that you were apotheosis had completed enough for you to take such forms as your own.
You write: "They mispelled your name twice".
And you misspelled "misspelled" once.
IANAL, but I imagine that since when something is public domain it means that its copyright is, at least for legal purposes, owned by the public. You can't take MetaFOO 1.5's copyright away from the public any more than you could take Windows'. Of course, you're free to use the source however you want and even sell MetaFOO commercially. You can even use, say, 100% of the MetaFOO source code in a completely new product which you own.
Thanks for the link pal.
Not even that. "Public domain" == "do whatever the hell you want with it." This includes relicensing, and yes, you can even say you authored the thing.
In the case of most public-domain works, however, this is a non-issue. No one is going to believe I wrote Romeo and Juliet, for example. Likewise, nothing stops me from selling digital copies of that story, under an onerous license agreement. Heck, I can even mutilate Shakespeare's prose if I wanted to. It'd be largely an exercise in futility, however-- the work is already established.
PD is the absolute zero of IP protection.
iSKUNK!
So UCITA, in providing legislative teeth to "shrink wrap" licenses, may ironically make the GPL more enforcable? A poster below commented about copyright-vs-contractual law, but the point is moot post-UCITA, right?
[
Analogies are slippery things here. One could say that a thing is modified if the variable names were changed.
To an extent, you are correct. But I feel that you are oversimplifying a complex matter. Perhaps you feel that GPL software is free. It isn't. A part of the cost of the GPL software is agreeing to the terms of use. I, personally, don't find them onerous. You haven't made it clear to me what about them you find onerous.
This is rather like a religious person saying "If you want to be saved, by our rules, then you must go out and do good works, by our rules". And I do feel ambivalent about that, to the extent that I have generally avoided the religion. Even when I would nominally qualify. I don't feel the same way about the GPL, because it is so clearly a defensive act taken in the presence of a clear and present danger.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Did you really think that, e.g., Red Hat didn't make money out of their GPL'd software distribution, which includes LOTS of other people's GPL'd software?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You write: "Perhaps you feel that GPL software is free. It isn't. A part of the cost of the GPL software is agreeing to the terms of use."
Hold it. Are you an FSF supporter who just finally admitted that the GPL can only create non-free software?
Perens has not studied law under the tutelage of legal scholars or practitioners. He has very many reasons to be biased in his understandings of law.
He deserves some special place for his opinion, but we must keep in mind that it is not worth much, except as propaganda in the OSI and GPL movements and as something to discuss on Slashdot.
The Linux community is certainly large enough now to flush up some legal opinion from respectable sources. I wonder why it is so seldom seen?
It's sad to see that the most popular alternatives to the GPL (BSD, X11, Artistic) are ambiguious imitations of a legal contract which appear to have be written someone who has spent too much of his time staring at code. I'd think there would be enough geeks out there with lawyer-friends to come up with some decent alternatives to the GPL; maybe even one for those of use that don't want to coerce others to licence their work the way we do, but still need the protections of a good license.
They are anti-commercial because they are telling commercial bodies that those bodies are not permitted to recoup their million buck investment in the traditional way. Imagine a company that funds a book or a play or a movie or a travelogue being told that they were not allowed to recoup their investment in anything vaguely resembling the traditional mechanism for doing so. They would laugh at you. And laugh they have, up until the Open Source movement freed software from the onerous burden of the GPL.
"licence" is never a verb.
You write: I notice you didn't mention Bruce Perens -- regardless of whether he supports it now, he helped start it."
Bruce intentionally absented himself from the group and intentionally returned to the fold of moral pontification with Stallman et al. Did you want him to be given credit for something he opposes?
Free software has been around for 30 years since before the Open Source folks gave it that name. Look in your history books about SHARE.
Yea, my spelling is really bad, bad enought that when I do anything important at all, I spell check twice, reread it twice, and get someone to read it over if I can. Luckily, slashdot posts don't rank that high on my "critically impoartant spelling chek lyst." ;-)
Yes they profit from the software they write. But guess what, you get that software for free (in every sense of the word).
You make it sound like making money off of selling software is a bad thing. It isn't. Especially if they GPL what they write. This is why they are not parasites.
I think you people need to know the difference between being anti-commercial and anti-propietary. Anyone who is anti-commercial is admitting to being socialist. Wake up buddy, capitalism WORKS!
OK. Fine. That's a reasonable position, if a somewhat selfish one. But why do you feel you must obfuscate your position by calling writing "free software" when that term would so much more truthfully be used by those donating their ownership to the public (even those who aren't willing to return the favor), not just licensing to others in your GPL club?
You want to expand the availbable pool of GPL'd software. Have the decency to say what you mean, instead of saying what will garner you the most thoughtless converts.
Pardon, but the GPL _does_ dictate terms of usage. You can't give a GPLed program away without also giving the source -- and instructions, effectively commands, to continue distributing the source.
I'm glad to distribute source. But I'm not so glad to require other people to -- I'd rather they just include a link to my page.
What does it mean to "make money from your free software"? You can't stop people from benefiting from your software... Why do you want to stop them from benefiting in this particular way?
No, the restriction you want is legally impossible. Not to mention childish. It's been tried before, and the result is always more limited usage, because it's impossible to use the software to its full extant (for example, CD dsitributors can't include it on their disks if they want to be moral -- but if they want to be immoral they can do it without fear, by simply putting something else on the disk and claiming to charge all the money for IT).
The GPL has the same result -- slapping restrictions on the free use of software ALWAYS will reduce its usefulness, no matter what your intentions are.
-Billy
Atually, probably the only thing that would be restricted would be saying that you wrote it, if you stood to benefit from having people believe that.
Lies aren't illegal unless you have intent to defraud (or are in court, etc).
If Microsoft took a public-domain program and then claimed that they wrote it, they'd (imho) be attempting to defraud people because if they claim to have written it, you should be able to expect them to understand it well enough to fix it, etc.
You probably wouldn't win against MS, but considering that anything short of full disclosure can be seen as fraud in some instances, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this.
But, all said, this wouldn't be copyright protection. Similar to there being a law against you hitting someone with a book, even if the book was free and the information in the public domain.
hey brucie,
a friendly tip: if you're going to try to sound impressive with a lot of sexy tech talk and make yourself out as a self-styled 'pundit of the technocracy' you might take care to avoid "patently" idiotic, credibility-killing statements like:
"it's trivial to make any program a shared library or a callable object through object brokers like CORBA or COM... "
... especially since it's also a public dis-information service for your vaunted slashdot 'nerd-expert' brethren who appear not to have sufficient 'technical understanding' (aka 'a clue') to realize this...
as a benevolence and educational experience for your admiring/fawning readers i offer the following quiz:
brucie's statement (it's trivial blah blah...) is:
a) a meaningless and self-aggrandizing tautology in the sense of: "well, what i really meant was that any program that can be made to work... can be made to work... not of course the ones that can't, 'trivially', or at all be made to work")...
b) a confusion of 'CORBA and COM' w/ 'a generic blackbox wrapper facility'( that could be implemented MUCH more simply than by attempting to invoke the awesome CORBACOM gods -- have you heard of these fancy things called 'shells'?)...
c) completely false... or
d) all of the above
answer at 11:00
ps... neither CORBA nor COM are ORBs
Well, my take on this is that if you make money from marketing something valuable that you got from our community for free, you have a moral responsibility to return value to the community. Some people are not able to see the moral dimension. I choose to consider that as their fault rather than my illusion.
Bruce Perens.
They are a long standing software company and will probably release some free software to be on good terms with the open source community when they ship their distribution. Don't think it would be Word Perfect though, that's their money maker.
Think about it, it makes sense.
Kevin Holmes
"extrasolar"
(Maybe I should log i again...)
Nobody claimed Red Hat removes value from the community. But they're grabbing pieces and doing their own integration - nobody is handing these expressly to them on a silver platter, therefore they must be taking them.
How can you "take" what's freely given?
I don't think anyone who believes the GPL's infection to be "moral" to be standing in a place to lecture us on morals.
My guess is that it's another big port or release from Big Blue itself, IBM. What big program would the Linux community most like to see ported?
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
You have two choices:
- You accept the license. In that case, you are bound by it.
- You do not accept the license. In that case, you are bound by traditional copyright law, and you cannot copy, modify, or do most anything else with the work.
For people crafting new licenses, be sure to include a clause to the effect of: "You may also, at your own discretion, treat this software under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0." You loose nothing, and gain a lot. Only accept contributions under your own license. This does not give people the ability to make commercial derivatives, so you still hold a monopoly there. You can protect the program from splintering through traditional trademark law (no one can call a derivative program "Netscape" or the executable netscape). You preserve all of your rights, but make the license much more accepted by the free software community.
Of course they're doing it to profit from it - if they weren't, they'd merely be a charity. IMHO we're much better off creating business models that allow us to write Free Software for a living, rather than waste time on more proprietary garbage and donate precious free time with no reward. And why is Red Hat supposed to donate machines to have other people do work (and who, exactly) rather than do it themselves?
You can probably bet the bank that Johnny's mother did not read the license on that Mario XXVII package before Johnny tore open the shrink-wrap and fired it up. So is Johnny's mother still bound to the license? How can this possibly stand up in court? (That might be a rhetorical question; I'm too tired to know for sure)
Just remember who's calling whom a parasite here, and who's actually putting food on the table and giving people a fun job and a good product.
Well, There is quite the significant difference between effect and affect...
;)
Just as much as between except and accept. See your answer to adamc@email.unc.edu
Like the guy / gal said, look in any biology text (though s/he did miss-spell "symbiont). But then, nobody in this discussion, including Perens, really seems to understand symbiosis, parasitism, commensalism, mutualism, etc., so it's understandable that the wrong term was used.
It all comes down to protecting your rights.
If you don't want someone to do something, you can ask, but they can ignore you. Or, you can write a licensing agreement and they can ignore you and write their own software, or do as you ask and use yours. That's perfectly free.
If you think the GPL restricts freedom, consider the use of a non-propogating license... If someone uses your (modified) code and don't release it at all, the users aren't getting any benefits of what you wrote. So, one clause intended to control the robber-barons of the world, or monopolistic practices. Your choice.
I'm with Bruce. I'm not going to be an unpaid employee of a company I wouldn't work for if they paid me!
and nasa doesn't derive benefit from it's work in linux? you realise why donald becker and nasa are well served by good ethernet drivers, yes?
in general most people feel that the best free software is software that solves the programmer's problem. linus needed an os - so he wrote one. he released his code to help others and also to get help extending it for himself. by your definition he is a symbiote.
i think you need to rethink your definition. redhat spent $2.2 million on r they lost $100,000. if they cut their r&d budget they'd be profitable. i don't really use a scale, but that fact alone puts them to benefactor status to me.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
"The GPL has the same result -- slapping restrictions on the free use of software ALWAYS will reduce its usefulness, no matter what your intentions are."
Well, yes, a restriction that didn't prevent or er.. restrict.. some uses wouldn't be a restiction at all, so of course it'll reduce usefullness to some. That's the point of a restriction, yes? The relevant question is whether you want those uses limited in that way, i.e. only include restrictions that you want to include. Erm.. is this too obvious?
But alternatively, RedHat can circumvent you as well. If you wrote some software that you wanted to sell, but also make open source, you'd be out of luck once it starts appearing on every RedHat Linux CD. RedHat can sell it at a lower price. They have better distribution channels. People have actually heard of RedHat, not Joe Developer. RedHat can spend more money on marketing. RedHat has tech support. They also have pretty boxes. In other words, packaging, distribution, tech support and marketing are being rewarded, while technical innovation goes unrewarded. (except for the reward of creating it, but you can't eat off that)
People always point at RedHat to say "see, Open Source works!" Sure, it works for non-developers selling other people's code. Yes, RedHat does write some code, but that doesn't contribute to their revenue. Because RedHat sells to Linux users, having developers is really a form of PR for them. A company that sold open source Windows software for end-users wouldn't need developers, since end-users don't care who wrote the software.
Please share your drugs with me! You can modify something 100% and it's still a derivative work under U.S. law. Of course, if you do that, it'd be hard for the owner to prove that you stole from them unless you admitted it at some point or showed older versions of the code that were less than 100% changed.
But has a company *ever* lost a EULA case in court? In all the cases I'm aware of, the EULAs have been successful.
Not true.
It's easy to imagine someone taking an existing project, forks it, and with the benefit of more developers, makes it looks nicer. Then they release a functionally identicaly, but spifier version, except that they don't do it with open source. And then, they make minor tweaks, breaking compatibility so that their version works with both, but your version won't work with theirs. And, if they have the ability to force preinstall of their version, many users will stick with it because they can't change.
In such a way a company like MS could fork an open source OS and supporting apps, and deny most users the benefits of open source.
If any of the code I write is in something you write, then your work isn't completely original, and still benefits from what I wrote. If you can't handle the fact that modifying code doesn't make it your own, then you're no better than MS. Go pick on your baby brother.
It would be "freely given" if Linus burned kernel 2.2 onto a CD, drove to North Carolina, and handed it over on a silver platter. But he simply published it so anyone who wanted it could take it, and they did.
But some people are making "no user-servicable parts inside" wheels. I think that's wrong, and I'd much rather invent my own than do anything that might help them.
The thoughtless simply don't matter ("who would you rather have controlling this army of mindless zombies - that supervillian, or the marketing department at Mountain Dew?" - Japanese Beetle). If you're making Free Software, GPL'd software is Free for you. If you want to deny people source, you can fsck off.
Sadly, the OED isn't readily accessibl (apparently it will be available online early next year for massive bucks), but Merriam-Webster and several other online dictionaries all agree that "enquiry" is a variant spelling of "inquiry", and I never see it at all in wa.us. How are they used in your locale?
--
;youtolearn
AaronM.Henne-mhm9x2- http://www.navicom.net/~flaagg
PleaseexcusemyoccasionalmanglingoftheEnglish&nbs p;language.
IamaSociopath,anddon'tcareenoughabout 
howtowritemoregooder.
Aaron M.Henne- mhm9x2- http://www.navicom.net/~flaagg
Please excuse my occasional mangling of the English language. I am a Sociopath, and don't care enough about you to learn how to write more gooder.
Aaron M.Henne- mhm9x2- http://www.navicom.net/~flaagg
Please excuse my occasional mangling of the English language. I am a Sociopath, and don't care enough about you to learn how to write more gooder.
I'm glad to have the GPL, but the very fact that UCITA helps it should serve as a warning sign that although its intention is good, and its results beneficial, its purpose is deliberately restrictive.
Let me rephrase that: the only thing that the GPL does which is not done by other licenses is take away people's freedom.
Perhaps this is pragmatic. But I believe that in the realm of morals, there's nothing worse than pragmatism.
The definition of open source makes no bones about its pragmatism, and I respect that. But FSF pretends to be especially moral.
If you really want to write free software, make it truly free. If you don't want someone to use your software in some special way (such as distributing it to teachers whom you'd rather not instruct on the finer points of source distribution), don't put it in the license -- instead, just ask politely.
-Billy
But they also advocate putting punctuation in quotes even when the original material didn't contain it! I've heard of them, sure, I just think an Authority should think these things through more carefully.
I cannot but recall the Pharisees praying loudly in public places. Do not trust a man who boasts of his own morals, for had he any, they would be quietly clear to all who would regard him.
At least that's what one of my teachers once claimed when he made copies for the whole class of 50+ pages out of an old schoolbook of which he didn't have more than a hand full of copies.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
An author of free software gives the source to the community, fully knowing that one of the things the recipients could do with the source is make money. 'Here, make money with this if you like' is an inherent part of the gift.
There are no moral obligations being made, obeyed or denied here at all. 'It's your source too, now. Do what you want. Have fun.'
I am able to see the moral dimension -- that we should share what we learn with our fellows, and let them be free as long as they don't hurt us. This is the highest moral law, and I uphold it at all times.
VARs are bound by the licensing terms of the licenses of the software they use, but not necessarily by Bruce's Feelings on Money and Giving Back. They may well share your viewpoint, but we don't write software because we expect a present from [insert own VAR here]. A high percentage of users doesn't even submit bug reports. By your logic, most users are parasites: using, profiting from and enjoying free software. Is that really what you want to say?
If the recipient of my gift pays some of our friends to write more code, well, that's just icing on the cake -- but by no means required.
Freedom is good. Money is not evil (programmers love that Mountain Dew). Helping out your friends is good. Knowledge is good. VARs are good.
Oh right. Play the race card. Yawn.
ya know, one of these AC's here is writes too good for a script kiddie. how come no name, rabbi?
affect (noun) - emotional state (rare)
== "His affect was permanently altered by his wife's lingering death."
affect (verb) - to alter, to change
== "He and the other doctors could barely even affect the rate of the cancer."
effect (noun) - result, outcome
== "What long-term effect this would have on the children was difficult to say."
effect (verb) - to bring about, to realize
== "He decided to dedicate his life to effecting a cure."
This is a facile lie. If someone uses your (modified) code and
don't release it at all, the users aren't getting any benefits of
what *THEY* wrote. Not you. They. It's none of your damned business what they do with their own work. You only get to say something about your own. Legislating morality is a busybody thing to do that really pisses people off.
It isn't nice for the author to try to dictate what can be done with a library. Not modified. We're talking simple use. This is like writing a book and then trying to restrict it so that it may not be read if you haven't taken Communion within the last month. It's inflicting yourself on the behaviour of others. It's wicked.
So much for the myth of the GPL being "free" software.
So incorporating a GPLed work 'infects' (I admit this term has negative connotation...do you have a better one?) the work you add it to. Size doesn't matter, and neither does the relative 'value' of the component you are incorporating to the entire work. That being said, would you say that the GPL is an 'innappropriate' (though of course it's the author's decision whether to GPL or not) license to use in the case of something like a device driver, which would potentially be useful in other systems, whose programmers may not want to use the GPL. Does the LGPL 'fix' this? i.e. a driver under the LGPL could be part of a GPLed OS, and also be incorporated into a non-GPLed OS, without the authors of the non-GPLed OS being 'forced' to switch to the GPL if they use the driver?
That may be a stupid question...I'm not very familiar with this LGPL thingy.
Calling Red Hat Software anything but a benefactor is wrong. They pay people to write GPL'd code, and they sell a very high-quality software distribution for cheaper than Microsoft Windows 98 (that is, if you even feel like paying for Red Hat Linux at all, since you don't have to). What more do you want?
They are as dedicated to free software as Debian, even if they don't actually have a social contract. They pour all kinds of resources back into the community. Bottom line: Red Hat is a benefactor.
Bruce, if you get this, please make clear why you rated RHS as merely a symbiote. Thanks.
I think this is an absolutely a great idea. I'm sure there were many more interesting e-mails. Is there any chance that Bruce will answer a couple of others? By the way, thanks for your insights Bruce!
Josh
I figured it was a combination of "abstract" and "obtuse" :)
Dur-hurrrr!
/me slinks away
It's a stupid business model that fights the very essense of information, and it means you have to create artificial scarcity (tell some people they can't have it) where there ought to be abundance. And it's only really an option for massive organizations that can coerce people into buying generic crap they didn't really want. (How many shareware authors can afford to sue for copyright infringement?) The fact they can sit around and collect more money without doing anything for it shows how poorly it maps to reality.
Get paid for the work in writing the code, not for the privilege of having it. Consult. Find people who need a custom version, and convince them to band together and hire you to make it.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
LPF has always used "Free" to refer to users' rights, not lack of cost.
This is an excellent and timely piece, especially because of the coming RHAT IPO. Bruce is one lawyer I will brake for.
:)
That last question depressed me a bit, considering all the millions (billions even?) of lines of code that will be lost, as time marches on. This reminds me of the library book CmdrTaco had that was out of print yet still locked up in a copyright. The book was of great importance to his work, but photocopying it would have been illegal, and hogging it it would have been to the detriment of others in his community who might have needed it.
The loss of IP is a great travesty of modern humanity. Imagine the great works of this century's intellectual and technical minds. Once these materials are gone, forget it. However well-written legislation that can protect both profitable business and the consumer might be a solution. But it needs to be executed concurrently in N. America and the E.U., and thats almost a meta-physical impossibility
But I have hope, and I'm pulling out my stationary pad right now.
/usr/games/fortune -m lawyer|less
Boo!
Here's a question for all you Peren's wannabes:
As mentioned in the post, the term "derived work" in the GPL license is not clearly defined. What if I were to look at some GPLd C code, translate it to pseudo-code, then translate the pseudo-code back to C code without refering back to the original source. Would this be a derived work? What if the code started in C but ended up in Perl?
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
heh! Very nice point. However the same thing would apply to any continuing 'project'. Microsoft for instance.
-matt
Sorry, I meant FSF of course.
I have a question:
GPL has been called 'virus-like' due to the fact that all 'derivitive works' must also be covered under the GPL. This fact has been pointed at as being one of the major 'evils' of the GPL. I have been told that, for instance, a device driver covered under the GPL, which is written for Linux, cannot be used in another kernel because it would 'infect' whatever kernel it is used in with the GPL. What do you guys think? Is this the way the GPL actually works? And if so, is it an unreasonable demand?
This is the answer I come up with:
A kernel that uses a GPLed device driver is not a derivitive work, because said kernel stands on it's own without that device driver. For instance, a kernel without support for a soundblaster awe-32 sound card is still a fully functional kernel...it just lacks that specific piece of functionality. Of course, the driver itself is still under the GPL, so the source code for the driver must be released, etc. But the rest of the kernal is independant of the driver. If I'm right, however, what about things like the code for Linux's SMP functionality? A kernel is still a kernel without SMP...So can the SMP code be imported without infecting the kernel? You could keep breaking pieces off of the linux kernel until the 'new' kernel you are creating is almost entirely Linux GPLed kernel...at some point it would become a derivitive work, yes? Or am I just confusing myself here?
Now, tell us about effect vs. affect. Last time I opened that can of worms, there were at least 30 follow-up postings arguing the point.
Bruce Perens.
Yet another pair of words that people mix up...it annoys me to no end to see people right "We are going to insure that it gets done" when it should be "We are going to ensure that it gets done." Insure is what State Farm or Prudential do ;) and ensure is to make sure **galaxy-weary sigh**
Are people just plain stupid in this age of ours??
Robin the Limo Driver, Fix the spelling of my name please!
Bruce Perens.
Oops, I think the law professor is from somewhere other than MIT. If I'm not mistaken, MIT doesn't have a law school.
Bruce Perens.
Heh.. Somone was typing just a little to fast, and doesn't realize the spelling checker doesn't do names...
Given the number of "authors" that have worked on Linux, and will work on it in years to come, that date could be a long, long way off...
I'm sick and TIRED of this debate! The GPL explicitly RESTRICTS the right of other people from getting what you've done and using it in a way you can't benefit (i.e. get the diffs back to you). Yes, the GPL RESTRICTS the freedom of other people. But to the hell with 'em, I want the enhancements to my code back so I can put 'em on my web page and get repute points!!!
If you want to let people get your work, enhance it, and not give you back, that's fine for me; but I won't let people do that to my code!
He says public domain software can be relicensed and the author's name can be removed. I believe this is not true, the authors name of public domain software is protected by law and cannot be changed into some bogus name. Am I mistaken?
I don't know about relicensing though? Can (unmodified) public domain software simply be but under a more restricted license?
You'd almost not notice this, but this might be something big? I myself am already wondering who it could be... somehow I think it's unlikely it will be Microsoft - if it is I will reconsider many of my opinions though.
Wishful thinking would let me hope Macromedia because they have some great tools. Is Macromedia 'traditional' though?
Remind me to stay cool though. This commendable move might have so little impact on me myself. I should not lure myself into dissapointment for making the error to think that (open source == Linux port).
Maybe EA Sports will open source their game engine and get rich by selling data and image files to us. ;-)
Or does anyone else have better guesses/views/opinions/rants?
This was a very useful article. You should set it up so that Bruce answers questions every 2 months or so (if he's willing). I think this question/answer type article on this subject with a real expert to answer will be very useful to your audience.
Thanks, maybe consider this type of activity for other topics as well like patent law.....