Torvalds Criticizes Open-Source Wannabes

Wonko42 writes "In his address at Internet World '99, Linus Torvalds threw some harsh words at Microsoft and Sun, criticizing Microsoft's thoughts of opening portions of Windows source and making his feelings known about Sun's restrictive new community license. He also spoke some about the future of commercial software, and dodged lots of Transmeta questions. "

Comments

Re:What would be done with Windoze source

[Eccles]

Probably number one on the list [of things to add to Windows] would be symbolic links

Note that Windows has symbolic links in a way, as you can create an alias to another directory. While this works in the File Open/Save dialogs for navigation, it has the unfortunate side-effect of replacing the file name with the link name which makes it a lot less useful than it could be.

Re:What the hell?

[Bruce Perens]

Darren,

I think the point you are missing is that sun is asking for Community participation as there is with Linux, but they are not giving the community the same quid-pro-quo that they get with real Open Source software. So, people of that community have a right to say:

1. I am not going to work on this because I don't think the license offers us a good deal, and I don't think you should work on it either.

2. Hey, you out there who don't understand about Open Source but have been hearing about it! We want you to know this isn't the real thing!

The only reall difference between SCSL and GPL in this instance is that with the GPL you can go your own way and distribute it anyway [if Linus doesn't like your change].

I can't stress how important a difference that is. The right to change software without someone's approval can be abbreviated to "the right to change it", period. For Sun, it's a control thing - they can't stand the thought that Microsoft might participate in Open Source and make its own changes. This even though everyone else would have access to MS's changes in that case and could clone the good ones.

There's also the matter of circumvention. If I don't like what Red Hat is doing with some GPL software, I can circumvent them and distribute my own version, which I continually develop and for which Red Hat gets no money. When you work on SCSL software, you're essentially working for Sun - paycheck or none.

Sun sells hardware. They can afford for their software to be Open Source if they just keep making good hardware. They are going to control-freak themselves right out of the market if they keep on this course.

Thanks

Bruce

Sure, but...

[Booker]

... I think he is right to criticize them for saying one thing, but doing another, in an effort to get some free publicity and/or damage a competitor.

I too am a firm believer that the author of a piece of work has the right to distribute it under any license they choose.

However, announcing to the world that you're going to open up your source - when the world is just finally learning what that means - but actually "opening" it in a very closed and restricted way - is disingenuous, and deserves criticism.

Linux Riot

[dattaway]

Wow. You just type that all in?

This is a riot in a more digestible format that may describe the fustration towards big evil software companies.

It's privately held

[aheitner]

"...his [Torvalds'] company..." is just an expression.

This is all speculation, of course: I'm sure they gave Linus a nice chunk of stock, but he doesn't own all of it or even a controlling interest. It doesn't seem to me he'd want one.

Paul Allen was a founder, right? He's prolly got a nice big chunk.

Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[Effugas]

People seem to be getting into this "good enough" attitude regarding whether Sun's Community Source License is open or not.

It Just Isn't, and here's why.

StarOffice, recently licensed under Sun's Community Source terms(so I've heard), possesses an excellent charting component. While the GD Library is good for many tasks, the charting component of StarOffice is clearly superior, and would be inordinately useful for the myriad Linux/Unix based web servers out there.

Unfortunately, Sun's license restricts any productive work from being done that could web-enable StarOffice on the server side. Apache could never be bundled with mod_starchart, and fellow coders can't put out their own, less memory hungry versions of the component.

The only thing Sun lets you do with StarOffice is fix problems for them, and if Sun doesn't want the problems fixed, the most you can do is release a bulky and semi-difficult to apply patch to repair it.

I believe they even end up owning your patch as well.

Now, StarOffice appears to be a very well put together app, and I don't want to slight it for its licensing terms. But the bottom line is: StarOffice is not Open Source. It's nothing like Open Source. Using the words "Community Source" is a cynical and slimy attempt to undermine the core advantages of the open model. While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk(and thus, extortable circumstance) should they do anything at all with the code beyond mailing in fixes.

Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[IntlHarvester]

While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk

Did it occur to you that perhaps the "community" referred to in the Community Source Licence is not the same community that comprises the Linux/GNU user base? Just because they mention "community" and "source", there is no reason to make the egotistical leap that they are talking about the "Open Source Community".

There is a very large, and very valid community that can benefit from Sun's SCSL. Namely people who depend on Sun products and don't give a shit about redistribution or forking or winning the hearts and minds of Linux users. If that's not you, why should you care? Source for Solaris can mean bugfixes today and not when Sun gets around to it, allows more code optimization, makes it easier to write device drivers, and so on.

(Note - Same argument goes for those who flame Apple's source licence.)

Furthermore, you appear to be demanding that Sun should start giving away commercial software simply because it would be useful to you and others. Why pick on Sun's SCSL chart module? Why not demand the dozens of other commercial closed source chart programs (like MS Excel)? Are you trying to flame Sun until they GPL all of their software just because the SCSL makes them seem amenable?

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source

[IntlHarvester]

If this is the case then sun should stop deceiving people into thinking that this is open source. Whenever Sun talks to the press ...

You are going to have to provide a reference to prove that - I couldn't find one.

Sun's standard PR bit on SCSL says:

The CSL model is the result of Sun's continued commitment to the open development of key technologies, and is based on Sun's community source principles, which include immediate open access, increased innovation, faster commercialization, and access for students.

ZDNet (referenced by /. a few days ago) makes the comparision with Linux, but they're ZDNet, not Sun. They quote someone from Sun:

At the end of the day, the issue is how you allow innovation, but also have a reasonable process by which the community sticks together on the core as it evolves," said Anil Gadre, general manager of Sun's Solaris division.

Neither statement looks like an appeal for the support from Open Source (TM) advocates or developers. AFAIK, they didn't enlist Eric Raymond or make any appeals to Linux developers.

And, they will probably get some free labor, although it will be from commercial developers and hardware manufacturers, not the OSS crowd. Which makes sense, because by-in-large Sun doesn't make any money from the OSS crowd, so why should they care?

That's not the problem.

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

First, not everyone is criticizing Sun because they aren't open. They are criticizing Sun because they IMPLYING they are open ("Community License", indeed) when they really aren't.

Second, why can't I criticize Sun's choice of license? They are a business providing a product. If I don't like the product I am free to explain why. Example: You buy a car from GM and it turns out they covered the interior body with cheap plastic that cracked a few years after the purchase date. Would you say "he who makes the car picks the interior body design"? Or would you complain about poor manufacturing?
---

MS Open Source nonsense

[gjt]

What's MS going to open source? The dir command?

sun's community licence and GPL

[sh_mmer]

guys, the slashdot community is not so huge that they can dictate what it means for something to be 'open source'. some of you may think that it is not enough for a company to merely publish their code. for you, they must give up all of their rights to the intellectual property which they paid for the development of. this is truly disingenuous.

by comparison, the GPL restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it--even if consumers would readily pay for it. please learn that it is not always that what is good for companies is bad for people!

What would be done with Windoze source

[spitzak]

Seriously, if Windoze was really open, like they gave out all the source necessary so that you could compile something that would run any Windoze applications, I would expect that very quickly this source would be modified to add missing Unix functionality.

Probably number one on the list would be symbolic links, and a scheme so that the filename "/A/" means the same as "A:/".

fork() (merged with their threads)

Removal of the case-insensitive filenames, or at least a hack so that files with different cases can exist at the same time and the closest match to a typed is used.

Fix libc so that writing text files does not insert CR characters (reading them can still strip them for back-compatability).

There are probably dozens of others. All little things that MicroSoft has put in there purposely to make it difficult to port software back and forth. The result would not be Unix, but it would make the system play nice with Unix and still run Windoze programs.

Why no direct billpay in SV

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

Disclaimer: I don't live or work in Silicon Valley, but I AM a programmer at a bank.

Here's the reason SV doesn't have the advanced banking tech: because programmers know better.

I HATE direct bill pay systems. There's no way in hell I'm letting Vast Conglomerate A ask Vast Bank B for some of my money. Trying to fix a problem would combine the worst aspects of dealing with a teller and calling tech support. There would be no way of fixing it short of closing the account--and even then I probably would never see that one payment again.

I ALWAYS opt for the "bill me" or "check only" option. If there is no such option, I do without the service. If I can't do without the service (cf. my recent cable modem purchase) I keep bugging the company by asking when I can stop the auto-debiting.
---

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV

[Jamie Zawinski]

Here's the reason SV doesn't have the advanced banking tech: because programmers know better.

Well, but it does, because all these banks are national. There's nothing special about SV.

But anyway, I think it's safe to say that no large company's business decisions are ever influenced by reasons like ``because the programmers know better.'' You must work at a very unusual place if that's how they operate there.

I HATE direct bill pay systems. There's no way in hell I'm letting Vast Conglomerate A ask Vast Bank B for some of my money.

Who says you have to let them ask? Instead of letting the recipient pull, you instruct your bank to periodically push. That way you only have one vast conglomerate capable of screwing you over (and it's one who already had the capability to screw you over anyway, since they already have all of your money.)

Re:Third world country

[Jamie Zawinski]

One of my pet peeves is that people over here *still* use cheques to pay all their bills instead of direct funds transfer. I'd almost forgotten how to write a cheque before I moved here, but hardly anyone does direct debit so I'm forever writing the things out and stuffing them in envelopes (not post-paid of course).

Get a different bank! Both Wells Fargo and Bank of America let you pay any bills online, and those are the two most common banks in the Bay Area. I'm sure many others do as well.

The way it works behind the scenes is that they'll do an electronic transfer for those payees who can accept it, and they'll print and mail a check for you for those who can't (the first check I had them write was for $1 to myself, just so I could see what the paper copy looked like...)

A sense of history....

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement. The main thrust of this movement is driven by the commercial requirement that no one company be able to control the means to the success of any other company.

How soon we forget! The Open Source movement (note capital letters) is the fringe movement to the Free Software Foundation that was started 15 years ago. The main thrust of which is decidedly not about protecting companies from one another.

Before you get all wet about some company releasing open source software, figure out whether or not the software they are offering is important for the correct operation of other parts of the system. If not, then who cares?

I care. Even if there is some software the the "other parts of the system" aren't affected by, I will be affected by non-correct operation. Therefore I want every piece of software I use to be open source.
---

Re:leave linux alone

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably doesn't know stuff about Transmeta.

Does anybody seriously think Linus is high-ranking in that company? Hell, he's a good hacker, but Transmeta could probably get the best benefit for having him on the payroll from keeping him out in a plexiglass case in the lobby.

GPL does not mean non-commercial!!

[gblues]

I see a lot of posts from people seeing GPL equated with free (as in free beer). They seem to have the idea that because the license requires you to distribute source, that it also requires you to give up intellectual property or that you cannot charge money for the program.

This simply is not the case. First, let's look at intellectual property.

Let's say you develop a whiz-bang Unreal-killing 3d engine, and decide to GPL it. Now you might be thinking, how do you prevent people from looking at the source and writing their own engine? Well, you don't. Of course, if they want to put in the time/effort to write their own engine from scratch, more power to them. By the time they finish their engine, yours will be obsolete anyway. If they actually decide to use your GPLed engine, you have two possible sources of income:

Sell them a closed license

Consultant fees for support of the engine

Now, for the myth that you cannot charge money for GPL software.

Well, Redhat seems to be doing okay charging $85 for a Redhat distro on CD. You can even take their distro, customize the default options/packages, rename it to BlueFez, and sell it yourself (or give it away!).

Sure, maybe nobody would shell out $50 for Enlightenment. But, they might shell out $50 for Enligtenment, printed manuals, 24/7 technical support, and an automated update utility. It's all in the value you provide along with the GPL'ed software that will determine wether people will buy it or not. In other words, it is market forces, not anything inherent in the GPL, that will limit what you can charge for GPL software.

Just remember: It's Free as in ideas, not as in free beer.

Nathan

This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Bruce Perens]

Remember the Linus of the bad old days when Qt had a non-OSD-compliant license? The Linus who said "whoever writes the code gets to make the license" and seemed to be mostly unconcerned regarding whether or not some Linux component would be Free Software or not?

Well, I like today's Linus a lot more than the old one.

Am I alone in percieving a change? Would anyone like to speculate on what brought it about?

Thanks

Bruce

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Bruce Perens]

But the old Qt license was "free but not free enough" too, so I am seeing a different reaction to a similar situation. I agree that Sun is attempting to blur the boundary between Open Source and non-Open-Source.

Honest proprietary software that doesn't represent itself as something it isn't and doesn't use strategies that block the creation of an Open Source equivalent is nicer than non-Open-Source software representing itself as Open Source.

Actually, I'm trying to get to have an argument with Bill Joy. There's someone who knows him and is trying to arrange that. Scott McNeally can come after Bill Joy.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[chromatic]

I'm not so sure it's a change.

I tend to think of this Linus as the one who says "Whoever writes the code gets to make the license" followed by "but shouldn't lie about the license terms in order to capitalize on the hard work lots of people have already done to make the World A Better Place." The second part just wasn't necessary before.

At least, that's my understanding of what he said. I don't speak for Linus Torvalds or my employers or many other people.

As a side note, maybe you ought to call up Scott MacNealy and remind him that being able to look at some source code doesn't necessarily mean that Solaris is libre. (ouvre?)

--
QDMerge 0.4 just released!

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[chromatic]

Bruce, you're spot-on right. The only explanation I can offer is that Sun is a Bigger Deal than Troll Tech. If a big proprietary vendor with a nice Unix (admittedly a loss leader for nicer hardware) can open things up a little bit, that's a validation of what we believe in (that the bazaar is better than the cathedral in certain circumstances), that is a major achievement. To find out that it isn't really the case, but rather a marketing-type of move... well, that smarts more than having to use lesstif or GTK.

That, and a lot of us are kinda disappointed with Java and standards.

--
QDMerge 0.4 just released!

Why Open Source?

[m3000]

I'm just asking for flames by posting this, but I'm curious, why would a company want to go open source? I mean, a company is ONLY in existence to make money, and if it happens to be a software company (let's say Microsoft for some interesting "discussion" hehehe) that's means their cheif product is software. How do you intended to make more money, by giving out something for free? Yes, you can make money with support, but why not make money with support AND software? Or say I make "Really nify program 2000". I could
A: Give it out for free and have other people improve it
or
B: Sell it for X dollars and go buy some new computer hardware.
I personally would take the computer hardware anyday. Sure, my software could get better, but I'll remain poor. I know that some of you will say that I should code because I like to code, but I like to eat too. Am I selfish, probally, but I think most of the world is too. Another example, Red Hat. Yes, they are succesfull, but think about if they weren't open source, and made you buy their "Red Hatix". Then they could get even more money then they did by just selling "Red Hatix" to people who were new to "Red Hatix". I guess I just don't understand why someone would OS their software, when they could sell it. I think it's this thinking that keeps most companies from going Open Source, they don't see (like me) what's in it for them, financially.

PS. Please don't call me a c*ck sucking *sswhore because I don't see the point of Open Source, it only pushes me (and other who are still undecided) farther and farther away from it. Fight my "stupidy" with facts, not FUD.

Re:Why Open Source?

[Bruce Perens]

There has certainly been a lot written about the "why". Try Eric Raymond's stuff at opensource.org. Once you finish that, try my essay on the Open Source Definition.

The short answer is that it is a better (faster, less buggy, more trustable) way to develop software. People can make money off of services, hardware, etc., rather than directly from sales of proprietary software, so they do that.

Bruce

Re:Why Open Source?

[twit]

Well, you can look at it from two perspectives: from that of a hardware vendor and that of a software vendor.

The hardware vendor should definitely go open source. Most likely they have patents on their hardware; while the source may give someone an edge in reverse engineering their hardware, it's not really that much of an edge, nor will it be a *competitive* edge. That is to say, no one is going to compete with Company X if all they do is copy what Company X does, merely two years later. Technology moves too fast for that.

For software companies, it's a different paradigm. Consider that most big companies, such as IBM, make a substantial chunk of their software dollar by providing systems integrations and customization on said software. Companies like IBM have more work than they can bother to do - that's why they develop "business partner" networks. There's substantial money to be made by going open source with your product and making money by supporting it. Is it sufficient to give away the software in its entirety? It is for some, probably not for others.

Likewise, very few companies are going to take your custom job, with open source, and distribute the source to it, even if they have the right to. Their competitive edge is tied into having your software - not to mention that it's worth quite a bit of money.

Consider the case of WordPerfect, which became the dominant word processing application by foregoing the copy protection which other such software was using. WP tacitly encouraged software piracy in order to build their install base; open source just extends that principle. The greater market penetration you have, the greater chance of an organization (because we all know, corporations are where the big money are) standardizing on you and putting money in your pocket for support.

It is possible that they could go to someone else for support or customization. Which is a fair risk. But I doubt that that would be the first choice; very few other companies are likely to know the application as well as you do.

Would Red Hat would make money if it wasn't open source? I don't think so; they'd have to deal with the expense of developing and maintaining a fairly huge body of software in-house. Operating systems development is not for the weak: it takes money, it takes bodies, and it takes time. Going open source, while it doesn't make for a guarantee that bodies and time will come your way gratis, at least gives you a decent chance.

--

Open Source Wannabies?

[cybrthng]

Uhm, Hello?

Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me, modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"

Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct results from the code, in commercial and non commercial aspects.

GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't be used in a commercial package.

Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or the FSF is gonna get your money.

Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what it was about.

i didn't think stealing was the issue.. why else would you want to use something you had absolutely no part of in the development cycle.

Linux is a community project, its built from the ground up for whatever reason people see fit to spend there own time on. Solaris was built from the ground up to be a Commercial OS, and for SUN to maintain its support, its quality of service, and its confidence of the customers and vice versa, they feel they *NEED* complete control of THERE OS.

Sun is 100% a commercial company, selling a hardware and software based solution from workstations to enterprise class database servers. I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of an OS glitch.

This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well call this slashcensord.org

Re:Open Source Wannabies?

[nas]

Oh, my. Where should I start?

>Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me,
>modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"
>
>Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct
>results from the code, in commercial and non commercial
>aspects.
>

So far so good.

>GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't
>be used in a commercial package.

Nope. Who controls the source code? Exactly who do you
think "GPL" is? Is it an organization, a person, the FSF?
You seem to be confused. GPLing your code gives control to
no one.

Furthermore, commercial software can be GPLed. You can
charge for GPLed software.

>Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or
>the FSF is gonna get your money.

FSF != GPL. Now how exactly is the FSF going to "get your
money"?

>Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it
>mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought
>progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what
>it was about.

Open source means allows free from restrictions (except the
restriction that it always be free from retrictions). You
can sell it or whatever, you just can't prevent other people
from doing the same.

>I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked
>up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the
>compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a
>fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of
>an OS glitch.

I'm sure that "Solaris" is a trademark. How exactly would
someone sell their modified version of Solaris as
Solaris(TM)? That fortune 500 company would be none bright
to fall for this. If someone did do this, Sun would have
grounds to sue them.

What the GPL allows is that someone could sell their own
improved version of Solaris. The customer would know that
this was not Sun's version. If this new version is better
than Sun's version then there is pressure on Sun to take
improvements from this version and merge them with their
version.


You really need to spend some time to figure out what the
GPL means. I don't thing you have the idea yet.

>This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well
>call this slashcensord.org

Given the amount of disinformation you spewed out you should be
moderated down.

All wrong.

[Bruce Perens]

the slashdot community is not so huge that they can dictate what it means for something to be 'open source'

The Open Source community has broadly accepted the Open Source definition, and we really don't like people trying to re-define Open Source for their own selfish purposes. As a community, we are big enough to give Sun a real problem in the market as their customers jump ship to Linux en masse. The SCSL is a band-aid that might reduce the hemmorage of users, but won't cure it. Sun needs to get over its Microsoft paranoia - the only reason for the SCSL is to keep Microsoft from stealing the show.

by comparison, the GPL restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it

No, it doesn't.

What the GPL does is enforce a quid-pro-quo. Take the example of my Electric Fence malloc() debugger. I give the product and source code away to anyone who asks, and I allow people to sell it. If you want to develop something based on it without paying me, you must give the source code away to anyone who asks, and you must allow people to sell it. If you want to do it under a commercial license without giving it away or giving people source code, you give me some money and I give you another license than the GPL.

What you are looking for is something more one-sided, where I give the software away, but someone else can take it, not give me any money, add their own changes, and then sell the result without giving me back the changes or giving anyone the source code. As the original author, what possible reason would I have for making myself someone's dupe - a sort of unpaid employee who gets no benefits - that way?

In general, free software authors write free software so that there will be more free software. They aren't interested in facilitating non-free software unless there is some obvious benefit to free software or themselves, and I can't think of why they should be interested in that.

Thanks

Bruce

Multi Media

[Wah]

(been using Linux 6mo.s, and I play games (win98))

Anyway, for multimedia streaming files (*LOUDCOUGH*) Windows Media Player, blows the pants off (*cough*) the competition. Being aware of previous Microsoft tactics (and the tendency to incorporate everything into the OS) I would not be surprised to find special APIs that Real,Quicktime and the others don't ever see. If they open some of their code (and I think they have to at this point, they're losing too many developers) some of this might come to light. At the very least it's more ideas to...evolve from.

Re:talk is indeed cheap

[sterwill]

This isn't true. Open Source software (in a GPL-sense, even) fits perfectly well with many, many existing business models. Open Source software as a product of business does not fit with existing proprietary software business.

Free software (Open Source products) may or may not generate revenue directly (consulting is just one established business model in which Free software can pay the bills), but that doesn't mean that it can't make existing services or products more attractive. Take, for example, a company that sells plumbing supplies wholesale, and provides Free software to its customers to manage specialized plumbing equipment inventory. If you were a plumbing supplies retailer, the availability of this software and its acceptance by said company adds to the value of the proposition of purchasing and managing your supplies from this corporation. The fact that this software is Free allows this company's customers to tailor and customize it for point-of-sale workstations, integration with payroll or other inventory systems, etc.

Red Hat is an example of a company that exists in that orthogonal world, as you mentioned. But to say Free software does not fit anywhere in "traditional business models" is ignoring centuries' traditions of marketing, customer relations, and a services-driven economy.

--

Re:Huh?

[Effugas]

Programmers ought to be paid to create new stuff, or generate new modifications of existing code.

The concept that it's a good thing to have millions of programmers redoing millions of lines of code is rather ludicrous; Open Source makes for the ultimate Code Reuse system.

From the fringe

[jflynn]

"If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement."

I guess I'm way out there on the fringe then, because I believe *most* actions have a moral or ethical component, albeit small, including the choice of license for a project.

I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say only open source licenses are ethical or moral, but they *do* help convince me the company is interested in the good of their customers as well as their pocketbooks. That kind of thing used to be called business ethics, back when it was in vogue. Companies were said to have a good reputation when they acted ethically, and they spent considerable time maintaining that reputation.

Open source licenses promote freedom and choice, encourage open standards, make software available to more people, increase quality, and help prevent monopolies. I consider these social goods, and therefore give open source licenses a moral and ethical plus. I am *not* saying that closed source software is evil, more like neutral, except in the case of licenses that egregiously exploit end users or interfere with consumer choice.

??Re:This is a welcome change in Linus!

[Monty Worm]

Ummm. Bruce. Not quite.

Linus doesn't seem to have changed his mind at all. What he seems to be saying (to me, anyway) is: "Either be a wolf, or a sheep. But don't play dress-up. Don't pretend to be open-source if your licence is really non-free".

It's a valuable point. If you write your own license, you shouldn't pretend it's free if it isn't. It brings everything down.

As for Microsoft's push to make parts of Windows free: I think they've missed the point. We need the whole to be free, or nothing. If only inbuilt, interdependent components are free then we still can't do anything.

Re:Third world country

[Bob-K]

Yeah, I think the problem is that relatively few payees in the US accept online transfers. I have it down to two checks a month, though; car and rent. The hardest part is finding the correct checkbook after it has sifted down into the pile for 29 days.

I'd have to guess that Finland, like many other European countries, enjoys some benefits of being relatively small and homogeneous. Once something like online payment reaches critical mass, it's easier for it to permeate the entire society. There are some cool technologies that are far more widely deployed in Europe, but that doesn't exactly make the US a technology backwater.

On the other hand, I'm not offended by Linus' wisecrack, either.

Any access to the source is better than none

[Foaf]

There are a hell of a lot of Windows apps that proabably wouldn't have come about or been as useful without looking at the Windows source.

Citrix WinFrame comes to mind. IIRC Citrix did a deal with MS to get access to the source for Windows. This basically meant they could fix bugs more easily.

I've read various discussion groups where Sun developers are happy about Sun's decicision to open up Solaris because it will help them with their application developement. The same would go for Windows developers if MS, by some miracle, decided to let people see the source for Windows.

IMHO, the bulk of software developers, especially those who write for Windows, aren't really interested in helping maintain their OS of choice. They just want to make their software run better, with less bugs. Any access to OS source, no matter the license, will help them make this happen.
------------------------------------------------ -------

Direct debit a ripoff?

[Tet]

There's a reason people don't use direct funds transfers. It's a rip-off. In case you idiots haven't noticed, most banks charge extra for direct debit

Yikes! You really do live in a backward country! :-) Here in the UK, banks charge less for direct debit, because it saves them paperwork. Utilities typically offer around a 5% discount if you pay by direct debit for the same reasons -- it saves them money. A recent survey showed an average family in the UK will save the equivalent of around US$400 a year by paying bills with direct debit.

His remark about finland is so true!

[segmond]

I have friends all over the world, thanks to the internet, and I must agree with his remark about these third world countries being more advanced than us. You may disagree, but what do I care of what you think? when I know what I know? In USA today, in classrooms we get to use PIII500mhz with 256mb of ram, and 20inch montior with windows. In third world countries we are broke, and get to use 386dx 40mhz with 16mb ram and 100mb drive. Because of the low quality of the machines, we try to make up for what we don't have, when we code, we don't use visual basic because it will be bloated, we run other better OS to utilize the hardware best, ie bsd/linux not windows. In USA, everyone gets spoiled with fine hardware and crap.
I have had the pleasure of talking to many youngsters, (11-13) in third world europe countries who code in assembly languages and run unix os. I should transfer to a finland for school, I will get a better education and for cheaper money, when I am done with my BS, just come back to the states, spend a year get a Master, and I am ready to roll.

Re:What the hell?

[Bruce Perens]

there has to be a clearly defined and industry accepted meaning of open source

I'm trying to figure out if you simply don't know that it exists, or if you reject it. There is an Open Source Definition that was announced, by yours truly, in the same announcement in which Open Source was announced. Before then the only phrase used to refer to this stuff was Free Software. The definition is on the opensource.org web site. It has broad industry acceptance.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: What the hell

[Bruce Perens]

The president of the Internet Press Guild tells me that they did use "Open Source" at the StarOffice press conference, and then they stopped using it soon afterward. He was there and seems to be a trustworthy person.

Bruce

Re:MS OS

[Trepidity]

sounds like *cough*Netscape*cough*

What the hell?

[Exanter]

Why is it that everyone feels that is their right and duty to criticize businesses who decide to take a risk and open up their code (Apple, Sun, etc) because the licenses aren't what YOU feel they should be? Is everyone forgetting the saying "he who writes the code picks the license"? It would seem even Linus is forgetting that one now.

Cripes, we should be happy that they are even giving us a chance to look at source code. If you don't like the terms of the license, then for god's sake don't bother making changes... It's not like 95% of the people bitching could even make a change, much less understand half of what they would be looking at anyways.